v.<2*^«s- 


o<2.  goj 


BOOK    378.77  1.0H3    ZH   v.6   c.  1 
OHIO    #    HISTORY   OF   OHIO   STATE 

UNIVERSITY 


3  T1S3  D012DSfl3  E 


DEC ')  0  fp53 


c 


HISTORY  OF 
THE  OHIO  STATE  UNIVERSITY 

VOLUME  VI 


The  Convocation 


ADDRESSES  AND  PROCEEDINGS 

OF 

THE  SEVENTY-FIFTH 
ANNIVERSARY 

1948-49 


Growth  through  Service 


THE  OHIO  STATE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

COLUMBUS 

1951 


3  7^>-7/ 

Oh3 


v^ 


COPYRIGHT,  1 95 1   BY 
THE  OHIO  STATE  UNIVERSITY 


FOREWORD 

The  Seventy-fifth  Anniversary  celebration  of  The  Ohio  State  Uni- 
versity began  with  a  two-day  University-wide  celebration  on  October 
14  and  15,  1948,  and  continued  throughout  the  school  year  with  some 
sixty-nine  special  observances  by  the  various  colleges,  schools,  depart- 
ments and  other  divisions  of  the  University.  Although  the  University 
was  established  in  1870,  it  opened  its  doors  to  students  on  September 
17,  1873;  hence  the  selection  of  this  year  for  the  celebration. 

A  general  anniversary  committee  was  responsible  for  the  over-all 
planning.  Vice-President  Harlan  H.  Hatcher  was  chairman  of  this 
committee  and  James  F.  FuUington,  chairman  of  the  Department  of 
English,  was  executive  director  of  the  celebration. 

There  were  a  number  of  other  committees  responsible  for  different 
portions  of  the  celebration.  Persons  from  many  areas  in  the  University, 
including  some  in  retirement,  served  on  these  committees.  For  exam- 
ple, Edith  D.  Cockins,  Registrar  Emeritus,  made  a  memorable  contri- 
bution in  handling  arrangements  for  the  Seventy-fifth  Anniversary 
Dinner,  which  was  held  at  the  Neil  House  on  October  15.  The  Board 
of  Trustees,  the  faculty,  the  student  body,  and  many  friends  of  the 
University  co-operated  loyally  and  effectively. 

The  theme  of  the  year-long  celebration  was  expressed  in  the  motto, 
"Growth  through  Service."  The  various  observances  brought  many 
distinguished  scholars,  scientists,  administrators,  and  educators  to  the 
campus.  The  University  found  an  opportunity  to  appraise  its  past  and 
present,  and  to  examine  critically  its  plans  for  continued  service. 

The  present  volume  contains  the  addresses  delivered  at  the  general 
University-wide  celebration  on  October  14-15,  and  at  the  program  held 
in  connection  with  the  annual  meeting  of  The  Ohio  State  University 
Research  Foundation  on  November  4.  Of  the  other  events  held  during 
the  year,  some  were  specially  planned  for  the  anniversary,  and  some 
were  annual  events  which  gave  special  recognition  to  the  Uni- 
versity's birthday.  Only  a  few  of  the  highlights  of  the  year  can  be 
recounted  here. 

The  work  of  the  University  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  thou- 


VI  SEMENTY-FIFTH  ANNIVERSARY 

sands  of  people  through  newspaper  and  magazine  articles  and  local  and 
national  radio  programs.  The  University's  radio  station  WOSU  broad- 
casted many  of  the  addresses  given  during  the  program  on  October 
14-15  and  at  other  events.  The  Columbia  Broadcasting  System  carried 
a  portion  of  the  address  by  Karl  T.  Compton  at  the  Anniversary  Ban- 
quet. The  history  of  the  University  was  the  subject  for  a  state-wide 
broadcast  entitled,  "The  Broad-Gauge  University,"  carried  by  ten  Ohio 
stations  on  October  15,  1949.  And  there  were  others  as  the  year 
went  forward. 

Among  the  special  observances  were  those  of  the  College  of  Engi- 
neering on  January  24,  and  the  College  of  Agriculture  on  March  22-25. 
These  are  the  two  original  colleges  of  the  University,  now  grown  to 
ten  colleges  and  a  Graduate  School.  The  celebration  of  the  College  of 
Agriculture  was  made  a  part  of  the  annual  Farm  and  Home  Week,  an 
event  which  attracted  more  than  ten  thousand  persons  to  the  campus. 
A  Women's  Institute,  March  21-23,  brought  outstanding  leaders  in 
women's  activities  throughout  Ohio  to  the  campus  to  consider  ways 
of  serving  Ohio  communities.  The  College  of  Commerce  and  Admin- 
istration held  nine  conferences  and  institutes  for  business  groups 
during  the  year. 

Other  special  anniversary  celebrations  included  those  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Chemistry  on  November  19-20;  the  College  of  Medicine, 
December  6-1 1;  the  University  Religious  Council,  February  6  and  20; 
the  College  of  Education,  April  20-21;  the  College  of  Law,  May  6-7; 
the  College  of  Pharmacy,  May  11-13;  and  the  School  of  Nursing, 
June  13-17. 

A  number  of  national  meetings  came  to  the  campus  during  the 
year.  Four  national  mathematics  groups — the  American  Mathematical 
Society,  the  Mathematical  Association  of  America,  the  Association  for 
Symbolic  Logic,  and  the  National  Council  of  Mathematics  Teachers — 
met  on  December  27-30.  Other  national  meetings  were  those  of  the 
National  Academy  of  Cleft  Palate  Prothesis,  March  21-22;  the  Ameri- 
can Association  of  Collegiate  Registrars,  April  25-28;  the  American 
Philosophical  Association,  April  28-30;  the  Institute  for  Education  by 
Radio,  May  6-7;  the  American  Association  for  Adult  Education,  May 
9-1 1 ;  and  the  Institute  of  Accounting,  May  20-21. 


FOREWORD  vn 

The  year  was  notable  also  for  significant  progress  in  the  Univer- 
sity's new  building  program.  Hughes  Hall  was  dedicated  as  the  new 
home  of  the  School  of  Music  on  June  4;  graduates  of  the  University, 
returning  for  Alumni  Day,  participated  in  the  ceremonies.  Breaking 
ground  for  the  addition  to  Hagerty  Hall  took  place  at  a  brief  ceremony 
on  November  5. 

Students  and  faculty  received  their  first  gUmpse  of  the  new  Student 
Union  building  plans  at  an  "unveiling"  in  University  Hall  auditorium 
on  January  19.  Groundbreaking  for  the  addition  to  the  Main  Library, 
later  to  be  known  as  the  William  Oxley  Thompson  Memorial  Library, 
was  marked  by  a  ceremony  on  May  9.  These  were  all  significant  parts 
in  the  launching  of  a  building  program  which  eventually  would  add  to 
the  physical  plant  ten  new  structures  and  additions  to  three  other  build- 
ings. It  was  appropriate  that  they  should  come  during  the  anniver- 
sary year. 

In  addition  to  marking  an  anniversary  for  the  University,  the  year 
saw  the  completion  of  college  training  for  a  record  number  of  veterans 
of  World  War  II,  who  four  years  previously  had  swelled  the  enrollment 
to  a  new  high.  At  the  June,  1949  commencement  exercises  in  Ohio 
Stadium,  2,457  graduates  received  diplomas,  a  new  high.  For  the 
year,  the  total  was  5,567.  The  seventy-five  thousandth  graduate  of  the 
University  was  a  member  of  the  June  class. 

WiLUAM  G.  Wilcox 


CONTENTS 

PART  I 
THE  GENERAL  UNIVERSITY  CELEBRATION 

Page 

The  Program 3 

The  Convocation 9 

Invocation,  The  Reverend  Boynton  Merrill 11 

Opening  Remarks,  Howard  L.  Bevis 12 

Greetings 

Governor  Thomas  J.  Herbert 15 

H.  E.  Simmons 16 

William  A.  Dougherty 17 

Leslie  R.  Forney,  Jr 19 

H.  Gordon  Hullfish 20 

Address,  James  Lewis  Morrill 23 

Address,  Howard  L.  Bevis 32 

The  First  Conference 41 

Opening  Remarks,  Charles  E.  MacQuigg 42 

Address,  Charles  F.  Kettering 44 

Address,  Cornelius  Kruse 52 

The  Second  Conference 67 

Opening  Remarks,  Jefferson  B.  Fordham 68 

Address,  Robert  Lawrence  Stearns 71 

Address,  W.  W.  Waymack 83 


X  SEVENTY-FIFTH  ANNIVERSARY 

Page 

The  Third  Con  ference 97 

Opening  Remarks,  Gordon  Keith  Chalmers 98 

Address,  Mildred  McAfee  Horton 100 

Address,  Reinhold  Niebuhr 1 10 

The  Seventv'-fifth  Anniversary  Dinner 125 

Opening  Remarks,  Harlan  H.  Hatcher 126 

Responses 

Carl  W.  Weygandt 128 

John  B.  Fullen 1 29 

James  J.  Hurley 131 

Ramon  Gual 1 33 

Greetings  from  the  Board  of  Trustees,  Donald  C.  Power 135 

Address,  Karl  Taylor  Compton 138 

Concluding  Remarks,  Howard  L.  Bevis 152 

Delegates  and  Representatives 153 

From  Colleges  and  Universities 154 

From  Societies  and  Associations 157 

From  Student  Organizations 158 

PART  II 

THE  PROGRAM  OF  THE  OHIO  STATE  UNIVERSITY 
RESEARCH  FOUNDATION 

Opening  Remarks,  Howard  L.  Bevis 162 

Address,  Major  General  Anthony  C.  McAuliffe 166 

Address,  E.  C.  Bain 179 

Address,  Hugh  S.  Taylor 1 89 


PART  I 

THE  GENERAL  UNIVERSITY 
CELEBRATION 

October  14-15,  1948 


PROGRAM  COMMEMORATING  THE  SEVENTY-FIFTH 
ANNIVERSARY  OF  THE  OPENING  OF  CLASSES 


COLUMBUS 
OCTOBER  FOURTEENTH  AND  FIFTEENTH 
NINETEEN    HUNDRED    AND    FORTY -EIGHT 


THE  ACADEMIC  PROCESSION 

Thursday,  October  fourteenth 
2:15-2:30  P.M. 

The  Marshals 

The  President  of  the  University  and  the  Governor  of  Ohio 

The  Speakers 

The  Trustees  of  the  University 

The  Administrative  Officers  of  the  University 

The  Deans 

The  Delegates  from  the  Colleges  and  Universities 

The  Delegates  from  Societies  and  Associations 
FOR  the  Advancement  of  Learning 

The  University  Faculty 

The  Representatives  of  Student  Organizations 


THE  CONVOCATION 

Thursday,  October  fourteenth — 2:30  p.m. 
The  Physical  Education  Building 

MUSICAL  PRELUDE 2:00-2:30  p.m. 

The  University  Concert  Band 
Manley  R.  Whitcomb,  Conductor 

Trumpet   Tune Henry   Purcell 

Sarabande J.  S.  Bach 

Gavotte G.   F.   Handel 

Aria A.  F.  Tenaglia 

Psalm  XVIII Marcello 

American  Folk  Rhapsody Grundman 

Overture  "Tircis" Senec 

4 


THE  PROGRAM  5 

PROCESSIONAL 

Coronation  March  from  "The  Prophet" Meyerbeer 

INVOCATION 

The  Reverend  Boynton  Merrill 

FOR  THE  STATE  OF  OHIO 
Thomas  J.  Herbert,  Governor 

FOR  THE  COLLEGES  OF  OHIO 

H.  E.  Simmons,  President,  The  University  of  Akron,  and  President, 
the  Ohio  College  Association 

FOR  THE  ALUMNI 

William  A.  Dougherty,  President,  the  Ohio  State  University 
Association 

FOR  THE  STUDENT  BODY 

Leslie  R.  Forney,  Jr.,  President,  the  Student  Senate 

FOR  THE  FACULTY 

H.  Gordon  Hullfish,   Member,  the  Conference  Committee  of  the 
Teaching  Staff 

MUSIC 

The  University  Symphonic  Choir 
Louis  H.  Diercks,  Conductor 

The  Spires Christiansen 

Diffusa  est  Gratia Nanani-Diercks 

Be  as  a  Lion  (Merry  Mount) Howard  Hansen 

ADDRESS — "New  Occasions  and  New  Duties" 

James  Lewis  Morrill,  President,  the  University  of  Minnesota,  and 
President,  the  Association  of  Land-Grant  Colleges  and  Universities 

ADDRESS— "Our  Diamond  Jubilee" 

Howard  L.  Bevis,  President,  The  Ohio  State  University 

RECESSIONAL 

Marche  Militaire  "Francaise" Saint-Saens 


THE  CONFERENCES 

The  University  Hall  Chapel 

Thursday,  October  Fourteenth — 8  p.m. 

Presiding:     Charles  E.  MacQuigg,  Dean,  the  College  of  Engineering 
"Science  and  Technology — Servants  of  Man" 
Charles  F.  Kettering,  Vice  President  and  Director,  the  General 
Motors  Corporation 

"Humanity's  Need  for  the  Humanities" 

Cornelius  Kruse,  William  Griffin  Professor  of  Philosophy,  Wesleyan 

University,  and  formerly  Director,  the  American  Council  of  Learned 

Societies 

Friday,  October  Fifteenth — lo  a.m. 

Presiding:    Jefferson  B.  Fordham,  Dean,  the  College  of  Law 
"The  State  University — A  Service  to  Democracy" 
Robert  Lawrence  Stearns,  President,  the  University  of  Colorado 
"Education  for  Survival" 

W.  W.  Waymack,  Member,  the  United  States  Atomic  Energy 
Commission 

Friday,  October  Fifteenth — 2  p.m. 

Presiding:     Gordon  Keith  Chalmers,  President,  Ken  yon  College 
"Living  with  Our  Human  Relations" 
Mildred  McAfee  Horton,  President,  Wellesley  College 
"Our  Pilgrimage  from  a  Century  of  Hope  to  a  Century  of  Perplexity" 
Reinhold  Niebuhr,  Professor  of  Applied  Christianity,  Union 
Theological  Seminary 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  LUNCHEON 

For  Delegates  and  Invited  Guests 


Friday,  October  fifteenth — 12:00 
The  Faculty  Club 


THE  SEVENTY-FIFTH  ANNIVERSARY  DINNER 

Friday,  October  fifteenth — 7  p.  m. 
The  Neil  House 

MUSICAL  PRELUDE 

The  University  Salon  Orchestra 
George  E.  Hardesty,  Conductor 

Turkish   March Beethoven 

Valse  Lento  from  "Sylvia"  Ballet Delibes 

Faust  Ballet  Suite Gounod 

Arioso    Bach 

Roumanian   Folk   Dances Bartok 

THE  TOASTMASTER 

Harlan  Hatcher,  Vice-President,  The  Ohio  State  University 

RESPONSES 

Carl  V.  Weygandt,  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  State  of 

Ohio 
John  B.  Fullen,  Secretary,  the  Ohio  State  University  Association 
James  J.  Hurley,  Consul,  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
Ramon  Gual,  Consul,  the  Republic  of  Mexico 

GREETINGS  FROM  THE  BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES 

MUSIC 

The  University  Men's  Glee  Club 
Dale  V.  Gilliland,  Conductor 

Feasting  I  Watch Elgar 

Voix  Celestes Alcock-Strickling 

Song  of  the  Wanderlust McCuIlum 

Ole  Ark's  a-Moverin Cain 

ADDRESS — "Science  and  Security" 

Karl  Taylor  Compton,  President,  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of 
Technology 

CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

Howard  L.  Bevis,  President,  The  Ohio  State  University 

"CARMEN  OHIO" 

7 


THE  CONVOCATION 

Presiding  Officer: 

Howard  L.  Bevis,  President,  The  Ohio  State  University 

The  Invocation: 

The  Reverend  Boynton  Merrill,  Minister,  First  Congregational 
Church,  Columbus 

Speal^ers: 

The  Honorable  Thomas  J.  Herbert,  Governor  of  Ohio 

H.  E.  Simmons,  President,  the  University  of  Akron,  and  President,  the 

Ohio  College  Association 
William  A.  Dougherty,  President,  the  Ohio  State  University 

Association 
Leslie  R.  Forney,  Jr.,  President,  the  Student  Senate 
H.  Gordon  Hullfish,  The  Conference  Committee  of  the  Teaching 

Staff 
James  Lewis   Morrill,  President,  the   University  of  Minnesota,  and 

President,  the  American  Association  of  Land-Grant  Colleges  and 

Universities 
Howard  L.  Bevis,  President,  The  Ohio  State  University 


INVOCATION 

By  the  Reverend  Boynton  Merrill 

OThou  who  art  the  author  and  sustainer  of  all  created  things, 
we  invoke  Thy  presence.  So  long  Thy  love  and  wisdom  have 
led  us;  sure  they  still  will  lead  us  on. 

Age  after  age,  the  living  wait  upon  Thee  and  stand  before  Thy 
wondrous  world  and  find  that  of  Thy  renewing  power  there  is  no  end. 
Before  ever  Thou  hadst  breathed  into  the  dust  of  the  earth  the  breath 
of  life,  Thou  hadst  decreed  that  knowledge  should  grow  from  more  to 
more  and  that  the  truth  should  break  over  us  like  morning.  For  the 
slow  unveiling  of  Thy  wisdom,  the  revelation  of  Thy  will  and  power, 
we  do  now  praise  Thee. 

Grant  unto  us  who  stand  in  the  great  succession  of  those  who  have 
set  their  pilgrim  feet  to  walk  in  the  paths  which  lead  toward  wisdom — 
grant  unto  us,  we  pray  Thee,  ever  to  confront  Thy  mysterious  universe 
with  wondering  and  eager  minds,  and  ever  to  confront  Thee  with 
humble  hearts.  Help  us  to  know  that  even  at  our  best  we  do  but  think 
Thy  thoughts  after  Thee. 

And  now,  we  ask  Thy  continued  blessing  upon  this  institution  of 
learning;  preserve  and  gr eaten  it  over  many  years.  We  bless  Thee  that 
from  small  beginnings  a  great  thing  has  come  amongst  us,  set  here  in 
our  midst  to  discern  and  to  preserve  the  truth,  to  unveil  and  lift  up  the 
beautiful,  and  so  to  shed  light  upon  our  human  life  that  man  shall  find 
it  good  and  rejoice  in  it. 

We  recall,  gratefully,  faithful  teachers  and  gifted  leaders  of  other 
days.  We  rejoice  in  the  long  procession  of  students,  men  and  women 
who  have  here  labored,  not  only  to  unlock  the  secrets  of  the  world 
about  them,  but  to  discover  and  release  powers  within  themselves, 
mysteriously  given  unto  them  by  Thee. 

And  now  we  would  commit  these  days  of  memorial  and  all  the 
unknown  future  unto  Thee,  praying  that  all  who  are  here  concerned 
with  the  high  pursuit  of  knowledge  and  with  the  getting  of  wisdom 
may  find  all  their  paths  leading  unto  Thee  who  art  above  all  high 
things,  the  Highest.  Amen. 


OPENING  REMARKS 
By  Howard  L.  Bevis 

Asa  background  for  the  discussion  which  will  be  heard  on  this 
/%  campus  in  the  opening  phase  of  our  seventy-fifth  anniversary 
X  .^  celebration,  I  should  like  to  make  two  observations.  The  first 
concerns  the  following  headlines:  Pope  Pius  Deplores  War,  Asks 
Liberal  Policy;  Germans  Seek  United  Nation;  French  Elections 
Watched;  Marxism  Called  a  Menace;  Russian  Troops  Occupy  Hun- 
gary; Czechs'  Independence  Hopes  Crushed,  Leaders  Sent  to  Prison 
Camps;  Population  Weakened  by  Hunger;  and  Displaced  Persons 
Seek  Homes.  The  fact  that  I  could  document  these  headlines  as  of  one 
hundred  years  ago  may  well  give  us  courage.  World  events  which  now 
seem  so  shattering  have  long  been  foreshadowed  in  human  history,  and 
in  some  way  or  other,  solutions  have  been  found  for  the  problems 
raised.  The  second  observation  I  should  like  to  make  may  be  less 
reassuring.  It  has  to  do  with  a  statement  quoted  by  former  President 
Elliott  of  Purdue  University  to  this  effect:  "The  human  mind  changes 
less  rapidly  than  the  events  controlled  by  it."  Colleges  and  universities 
are  primarily  concerned  with  the  human  mind,  and  the  challenge  is 
clear:  Can  the  institutions  of  learning  prepare  the  minds  entrusted  to 
rheir  guidance  to  work  out  current  solutions  for  the  problems  raised 
by  these  headlines  ? 

We  are  pleased  and  honored  that  you  have  taken  time  from  your 
busy  lives  to  attend  our  celebration,  and  we  welcome  one  and  all  to 
our  tents.  As  you  have  doubtless  noted,  the  events  of  these  two  days 
are  the  beginning  of  a  more  protracted  celebration  of  our  birthday 
which  will  extend  throughout  the  college  year.  Individual  colleges, 
departments,  and  schools  will  from  time  to  time  bring  their  friends 
together  for  observances  in  keeping  with  their  respective  endeavors. 
To  compress  them  all  into  one  big  event  would  be  manifestly 
impossible. 

This  is  The  Ohio  State  University  and  its  immediate  constituency 
is  the  people  of  Ohio.  We  like  to  believe,  however,  that  our  endeavors 
extend  beyond  our  own  borders.    Indeed,  the  presence  of  many  of 


OPENING   REMARKS  13 

you  attests  our  faith  in  far-flung  friendships.  Yesterday  I  received  a 
letter  from  Sam  Higginbottom,  known  to  many  of  you  as  the  apostle 
of  better  agriculture  in  India.  Sam  Higginbottom  received  his  training 
in  agriculture  at  The  Ohio  State  University,  and  we  are  happy  to  have 
in  our  student  body  a  considerable  number  of  students  from  India  who 
have  come  here  in  response  to  his  influence.  May  I  quote  a  sentence  or 
two  from  his  letter : 

I  thank  God  for  The  Ohio  State  University.  This  bond  between  the 
United  States  and  India  means  much  as  a  builder  of  international  good 
will.  As  the  University  is  rejoicing  over  its  ever-expanding  service  to  hu- 
manity in  Ohio,  in  the  United  States,  in  the  lands  beyond  the  seas,  I  will  be 
with  you  in  spirit.  In  memory,  I  will  walk  once  again  the  old  familiar 
paths.  I  will  take  the  shoes  from  off  my  feet,  for  wherever  I  tread,  the 
ground  will  be  holy. 

IT  IS  now  my  pleasure  to  present  to  you  a  series  of  speakers  who  bring 
you  greetings:  for  the  State  of  Ohio,  the  Honorable  Thomas  J.  Her- 
bert, Governor;  for  the  colleges  of  Ohio,  H.  E.  Simmons,  president  of 
the  University  of  Akron  and  of  the  Ohio  College  Association;  for  the 
alumni,  WilHam  A.  Dougherty,  president  of  the  Ohio  State  University 
Association;  for  the  student  body,  Leslie  R.  Forney,  Jr.,  president  of  the 
Student  Senate;  and  for  the  faculty,  H.  Gordon  Hullfish  who  will 
present  a  communication  from  the  Conference  Committee  of  the 
Teaching  Staff. 

The  introduction  of  the  principal  speaker  of  the  afternoon,  J.  Lewis 
Morrill,  is  a  peculiar  pleasure.  He  comes  to  us  today  to  speak  as  the 
head  of  the  Association  of  Land-Grant  Colleges  and  Universities,  one 
of  the  greatest,  most  powerful  educational  organizations  in  America. 
We  are  doubly  honored  that  he  is  here  also  in  his  capacity  as  president 
of  one  of  the  greatest  universities  in  the  country,  with  a  student  body 
of  more  than  twenty-seven  thousand. 

We  are  especially  thankful  that  he  can  be  here  because  he  is  one 
of  our  very  own.  He  attended  The  Ohio  State  University  and  took  his 
degrees  here;  he  became  secretary  to  our  alumni  association,  which 
under  his  management  grew  and  prospered  greatly.  He  was  the  Uni- 
versity's first  vice-president.    He  left   us  to  become  president  of  the 


14  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

University  of  Wyoming,  and  is  now  president  of  the  University  of 
Minnesota. 

Throughout  all  of  these  steps  in  his  career,  he  has  been  an  earnest 
and  effective  worker  in  the  cause  of  publicly  supported  higher  educa- 
tion. The  subject  of  his  address  will  be  "New  Occasions  and  New 
Duties." 


GREETINGS,  FOR  THE  STATE  OF  OHIO 
By  Governor  Thomas  J.  Herbert 

JUST  as  members  of  the  University  family  are  proud,  all  Ohio  citi- 
zens are  rightfully  proud  of  the  progress  and  the  achievements  of 
this  great  institution.  In  the  light  of  history,  seventy-five  years  is 
not  a  very  long  period,  but  in  that  relatively  brief  span  The  Ohio 
State  University  has  grown  from  a  small  agricultural  and  mechanical 
college  to  one  of  the  large  universities  of  the  world. 

The  development  of  The  Ohio  State  University  is  a  tribute  to 
the  vision,  courage,  resourcefulness,  and  tenacity  of  the  valiant  men 
who  gave  the  best  years  of  their  lives  to  promote  a  great  ideal.  In  the 
larger  sense,  however,  the  greatness  of  this  institution  is  a  tribute  to 
the  wisdom  of  the  people  of  Ohio,  because  in  the  long  run  the  Uni- 
versity belongs  to  all  of  the  citizens  of  our  state.  This  inspiring  pageant 
of  progress  is  basically  a  tribute  to  the  principles  of  practical  democracy. 

A  statistical  recitation  of  the  size  and  scope  of  The  Ohio  State 
University  is  almost  overwhelming.  We  have  here  one  of  the  greatest 
educational,  research,  and  service  agencies  in  the  world,  with  twenty- 
three  thousand,  seven  hundred  students  and  a  physical  plant  valued  at 
more  than  thirty  million  dollars.  However,  the  significance  of  our 
University  cannot  be  stated  in  physical  and  statistical  terms.  The  real 
measure  of  this  institution  lies  in  its  contribution  to  the  enrichment 
of  the  lives  of  our  citizens. 

This  afternoon  we  are  observing  seventy-five  years  of  progress.  At 
the  same  time  we  are  dedicating  ourselves  to  the  idea  that  the  Univer- 
sity is  now  on  the  verge  of  its  greatest  usefulness.  The  vast  expansion 
program  which  is  now  under  way,  the  addition  of  splendid  men  and 
women  to  our  faculty  and  administrative  staff,  and  the  growing  influ- 
ence of  the  entire  institution  through  radio  and  other  means  signify 
a  future  of  even  greater  achievement.  In  co-operation  with  the  people 
of  Ohio  and  with  the  representatives  of  those  people  in  the  state  gov- 
ernment, the  University  can  look  forward  to  a  future  of  even  greater 
significance  in  the  service  of  all  mankind. 


15 


GREETINGS,  FOR  THE  COLLEGES  OF  OHIO 
By  H.  E.  Simmons 

I  BRING  greetings  to  this  Diamond  Jubilee  celebration  from  the  Ohio 
College  Association,  which  will  soon  be  holding  its  seventy-eighth 
annual  meeting.  Prior  to  1870,  when  this  state  University  was 
founded,  there  were  sixty-one  colleges  and  universities  chartered  in 
Ohio,  twenty-four  of  which  are  still  in  operation.  In  the  decade  be- 
tween 1870  and  1880,  eight  colleges,  including  Ohio  State,  received 
charters.  In  1870,  there  were  more  colleges  and  universities  in  this  state 
than  in  any  other  state  in  the  Union,  Pennsylvania  coming  second. 

The  total  scientific  equipment  possessed  by  all  of  the  colleges  in 
the  state  in  1870  would  not  have  been  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  needs  of 
one  modern  institution.  The  total  library  holdings  would  have  made 
only  a  modest  collection  for  a  first-rate  college.  Yet,  out  of  these  col- 
leges came  leaders  in  many  fields  of  knowledge.  In  spite  of  the  limited 
facilities  in  those  early  years,  there  was,  it  seems  to  me,  a  greater  empha- 
sis upon  the  acquiring  of  wisdom  through  the  educational  process  than 
we  find  in  our  present  greatly  expanded  programs.  Today  the  world 
needs  more  wisdom,  in  order  to  cope  with  the  products  of  our  exten- 
sive educational  developments. 

If  the  observation  is  correct,  that  more  wisdom  was  transmitted  to 
students  in  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  than  today,  is  it 
fair  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  a  large  percentage  of  our  students 
in  the  early  period  were  attending  church-affiliated  colleges.?  Of  the 
forty-two  universities  and  colleges  enrolled  in  1948  in  the  Ohio  College 
Association,  eight  are  known  as  public  institutions.  Significantly, 
these  eight  institutions  educate  60  per  cent  of  all  the  college  students  in 
the  state.  In  our  effort  to  train  students  to  make  a  living,  have  our 
public  insitutions  forgotten  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  learning 
how  to  live  ? 

Therefore,  on  the  occasion  of  the  Diamond  Jubilee  of  this  great 
University,  we  pray  that  those  who  administer  and  those  who  teach 
be  mindful  that  wisdom  is  the  principal  goal. 


16 


GREETINGS,  FOR  THE  ALUMNI 

By  WiLUAM  A.  Dougherty 

IT  IS  my  high  privilege  to  bring  to  The  Ohio  State  University  the 
heartfelt  felicitations  of  those  thousands  of  men  and  women  who 
spent  student  days  on  this  campus.  Although  they  are  scattered 
all  over  the  world,  their  steadfast  loyalty  to  our  alma  mater  is  unified 
through  our  alumni  association.  I  am  told  that  there  was  a  time  when 
the  genus  alumnus,  interested  only  in  victorious  athletic  teams,  was 
considered  an  unavoidable  by-product  of  the  educational  process.  Hap- 
pily, that  situation  has  been  changed  by  participation  of  alumni  in  the 
broader  aspects  of  higher  education.  The  distinguished  place  which 
The  Ohio  State  University  has  won  is  in  a  considerable  measure  due 
to  the  effective  and  devoted  interest  of  our  alumni  over  the  years.  Not 
only  is  their  official  organization,  the  Ohio  State  University  Association, 
the  third  largest  in  membership,  but  it  is  also  one  of  the  most  soundly 
organized  and  carefully  integrated  organizations  of  its  kind  in  the 
country.  Its  Development  Fund  has  risen  in  nine  short  years  to  be  one 
of  the  largest  alumni  funds  in  the  country.  For  several  years,  this  fund 
has  stood  fourth  or  fifth  in  the  amount  of  money  raised  and  in  total 
number  of  givers.  Many  friends  of  the  University,  in  addition  to 
alumni  and  former  students,  have  contributed  to  the  total. 

This  money-raising  effort  is  based  on  the  premise  that,  while  the 
General  Assembly  can  be  expected  always  to  provide  the  bread-and- 
butter  needs  of  the  institution,  the  refinements  that  really  make  a 
university  great  can  be  provided  by  alumni  and  friends.  The  adorn- 
ments that  you  see  on  this  campus  are  illustrations.  These  include  the 
monumental  gateway  at  Fifteenth  and  High,  the  bubbling  fountain 
at  Mirror  Lake,  the  Stadium  (which  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
structures  in  the  world),  the  clock  in  University  Hall  tower,  the 
chimes  that  ring  out  daily  from  Orton  Hall.  Alumni  gifts  furnished 
beautiful  Pomerene  Hall  and  the  Ohio  Union  after  the  legislature 
appropriated  the  moneys  to  build  them.  But  the  encouragement  that 
has  been  given  to  a  devoted  faculty  and  to  bright  young  students  has 
meant  much  more  than  these  adornments.  Our  brilliant  research  men 

17 


l8  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

have  been  provided  the  tools  with  which  to  further  their  work.  Such 
instrumentalities  as  the  cyclotron,  betatron,  Van  de  Graaff  generator, 
and  electron  microscope  have  been  furnished  by  means  of  these  gifts. 
Financial  assistance  at  the  right  time  helped  to  make  possible  our 
famous  Recognition  Work  for  the  armed  forces  during  the  war,  as 
well  as  to  build  the  finest  cryogenic  laboratory  in  the  world.  Cobalt 
60,  for  use  in  the  treatment  of  cancer,  was  announced  to  the  world  last 
spring  from  this  campus,  partly  as  the  result  of  assistance  to  research- 
ers from  the  Development  Fund.  We  have  added  scores  of  new  schol- 
arship and  fellowship  funds  for  students  and  we  have  increased  the 
loan  funds  available  by  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  dollars 
through  the  Student  Loan  Foundation  and  Development  Fund. 

The  University  is  a  concentration  of  many  forces — an  integrated 
whole  made  up  of  administration,  faculty,  students,  alumni.  As  an 
integral  part  of  this  whole,  the  alumni  of  The  Ohio  State  University 
pledge  to  you.  President  Bevis,  and  to  your  successors  in  office,  an 
ever-increasing  measure  of  assistance  and  devotion.  The  Ohio  State 
University  is  now  one  of  the  recognized  giants  of  higher  education. 
Our  objective  is  to  continue  to  provide  the  faith  and  the  works  which 
will  make  it  the  very  best  university  of  all. 


GREETINGS,  FOR  THE  STUDENT  BODY 

By  Leslie  R.  Forney,  Jr. 

I  BRING  to  you  today  the  greetings  of  the  student  body.  We,  the 
students,  are  very  proud  of  our  University — proud,  not  that  it  is 
seventy-five  years  old,  but  proud  of  what  has  been  accompHshed 
during  those  seventy-five  years.  It  is  said  that  a  university  must  be 
judged  by  its  graduates.  On  that  score,  Ohio  State  stands  among  the 
greatest,  for  the  men  and  women  who  have  preceded  us  here  have 
filled  well  their  places  in  the  world.  We  are  proud,  too,  of  the  future  of 
our  University,  for  as  we  walk  along  the  campus  every  day,  we  can 
see  its  facilities  being  improved  and  expanded,  and  we  know  that 
ever-new  doors  are  being  opened  for  service  to  the  nation,  the  state, 
and  the  community.  We  feel  sure  that  the  one-hundredth  anniversary 
will  be  more  glorious  than  the  seventy-fifth. 

But  as  students,  our  primary  interest  lies  in  what  the  University  is 
doing  today  and  what  it  is  doing  for  us.  The  present  student  body  is 
unique  in  the  history  of  the  University.  There  are  students  who  have 
seen  the  bloodshed  and  the  wreckage  of  the  far-flung  battle  fronts  of 
the  last  war,  and  there  are  those  who  have  just  left  their  homes  in 
Ohio  cities  and  towns.  But  we  all  face  the  same  terrifying  problem — 
that  of  preparing  ourselves  for  life  in  this  sorely  troubled  world. 

President  Bevis  said  last  year  that  the  goals  of  educational  policy 
are  threefold :  first,  to  prepare  the  student  for  occupational  competence ; 
second,  to  prepare  the  student  for  effective  citizenship;  and  third,  to 
prepare  the  student  to  lead  a  good  and  satisfying  personal  life.  We 
know  that  Ohio  State  has  given  us  that  preparation. 

The  University  has  faced  a  difficult  job  in  the  postwar  period,  but 
that  job  has  been  mastered;  we  are  proud  of  the  University's  accom- 
plishments. Therefore,  as  a  representative  of  the  more  than  twenty- 
four  thousand  students,  it  gives  me  the  greatest  pleasure  to  extend  to 
you  our  welcome  on  this  seventy-fifth  anniversary  of  The  Ohio  State 
University. 


19 


GREETINGS,  FOR  THE  FACULTY 

By  H.  Gordon  Hullfish 

On  Behalf  of  the  Conference  Committee  of  the 

Teaching  Staff 

IT  IS  my  privilege  to  be  here  as  a  representative  of  the  Conference 
Committee  of  the  Teaching  Staff.  This  Committee  is  itself  repre- 
sentative of  the  faculty  of  The  Ohio  State  University  in  all  of  its 
ranks.  In  this  capacity,  I  have  the  honor  to  read  the  following  com- 
munication to  President  Bevis. 

Our  seventy-fifth  anniversary  occurs  at  a  time  when  many  in  the  world 
question  the  purpose  that  underlies  greatness  at  the  university  level — the 
full,  free,  and  fair  exploration  of  ideas.  It  is  proper,  therefore,  that  the  faculty 
of  The  Ohio  State  University  should  take  stock  at  this  time  of  its  oppor- 
tunities and  its  responsibilities.  Self-appraisal  is  a  first  step  toward  surety 
in  future  growth. 

During  its  seventy-five  years  The  Ohio  State  University  has  served  the 
people  of  Ohio,  and  of  the  nation,  with  distinction.  An  historian  would 
take  note  of  the  development  of  specific  programs  and  colleges,  of  the 
growth  of  graduate  work,  of  the  growing  roster  of  distinguished  research 
workers  and  teachers,  of  the  general  responsiveness  of  the  institution  to 
the  needs  of  the  state  that  sustains  it,  and  ot  the  administrative  conception 
which  has  guided  it. 

The  Ohio  State  University  is  a  human  institution  and,  as  such,  has 
had  moments  of  weakness  and  difficulty.  Renewed  strength,  however,  has 
been  the  consequence  of  its  adversity.  That  strength  is  with  us  today.  It 
may  be  observed  in  the  wholesome  atmosphere  that  encourages  the  re- 
sponsible teacher  in  his  appropriate  work — the  freedom  to  discover,  and  to 
express,  the  larger  significance  of  the  ideas  with  which  he  deals.  It  may  be 
seen,  too,  in  our  established  practices  of  tenure,  in  the  representative  char- 
acter of  the  University  Faculty  Council,  in  the  impact  of  this  body  upon 
p>olicy  and  practice,  and  in  the  procedures  followed  in  the  selection  of  ad- 
ministrative officers  and  staff  members. 

We  have  an  honorable  tradition  on  which  to  build  as  we  move  into 
the  final  quarter  of  our  first  century.  This  tradition  is  clearly  the  con- 
sequence of  an  administrative  policy  that  has  been  generally  sensitive  to 


GREETINGS,   FOR  THE    FACULTY  21 

the  values  basic  to  the  creation  and  maintenance  of  greatness  in  an  institu- 
tion of  higher  learning.  The  policy  has  involved  the  faculty  responsibly 
in  contributing  to  the  growth  of  The  Ohio  State  University.  It  has  pro- 
vided the  proper  measures  of  freedom  and  responsibility  within  which  the 
faculty  has  been  able  to  conduct  research  and  examine  ideas  in  the  class- 
room so  that  the  bounds  of  knowledge  may  be  progressively  extended. 

It  is  good  to  be  a  part  of  an  institution  that  comes  to  this  anniversary 
year  so  fortified.  Our  times  call  out  for  greatness.  The  problems  men  now 
confront,  the  problems  to  which  our  best  and  most  devoted  intelligence 
must  now  be  turned,  arise  from  tensions  and  uncertainties  in  the  field  of 
human  relationships.  These  problems  can  be  solved  only  as  fact  is  substi- 
tuted for  prejudice,  as  truth  replaces  dogma.  Our  present  responsibility  is 
clear.  We  are  called  upon  to  seek  knowledge  and  understanding  in  the 
field  of  human  relations  with  the  same  vigor  that  has  been  characteristic 
of  our  search  in  the  technical  fields. 

The  challenge  before  us  arises  from  the  distinctive  need  of  our  people, 
the  need  to  understand  the  social  consequences  of  knowledge  as  this  is 
gained.  It  will  not  be  easy  to  meet  this  challenge.  Some  will  say  we  should 
not  try.  We  reject  this  as  unworthy  of  a  great  university.  Knowledge 
comes  to  full  fruition  as  it  illuminates  the  lives  of  men.  A  university  comes 
into  its  rightful  heritage  as  it  helps  men  live  examined  lives. 

There  are,  then,  certain  quite  specific  tasks  before  us  today.  We  shall 
need  to  stand  firm  administratively  to  our  historical  commitment,  that  the 
life  of  a  university  is  uniquely  a  life  in  which  the  free  interplay  of  idea 
upon  idea  is  highly  prized.  This  is  the  distinctive  democratic  commitment. 
No  fascist  or  communist  state  dare  make  it.  We  shall  need,  further,  to 
stand  firm  as  a  faculty  on  the  base  of  responsible  action.  We  must  not 
relay  dogma  to  the  student  nor  sabotage  intellectual  freedom.  We  have 
the  charge,  rather,  to  conduct  research  with  integrity  and  to  present  con- 
clusions and  opinions  to  students  with  honesty,  clarity,  and  courage. 

Finally,  we  shall  need  to  work  unceasingly  at  the  task  of  bringing 
to  the  student  a  realization  of  what  he  ought  to  expect  from  the  institution 
that  serves  him.  Our  students  are  entitled  to  a  responsibly  planned  and 
conducted  intellectual  life.  They  are  entitled  equally,  in  the  classroom  and 
on  the  campus  generally,  to  experiences  in  which  they  may  learn,  under  the 
condition  of  a  shared  and  critical  intelligence,  the  techniques  and  attitudes 
appropriate  to  democratic  growth  and  development. 

This  effort  to  take  stock  of  ourselves  has  been  rewarding.  Our  past, 
Mr.  President,  promises  a  healthful  future.   Within  it  we  find  a  commit- 


22 


SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 


ment  to  the  building  of  a  free  civilization.  We  pledge  ourselves  anew  to 
this  commitment.  We  are  confident  that  The  Ohio  State  University,  by 
maintaining  the  humane  atmosphere  in  which  intellectual  growth  is 
nourished,  will  continue  to  grow  within  the  pattern  of  greatness  its  past 
has  foreshadowed.  It  will,  thus,  continue  to  serve  the  people  of  Ohio  as 
a  democratic  people  should  be  served. 

Very  respectfully  yours. 


Richard  H.  Baker 
Roderick  Barden 
James  D.  Calderwood 
Edgar  Dale 
Wells  L.  Davis 
Virgil  Hinshaw,  Jr. 
H.  Gordon  Hullfish 


Robert  E.  Mathews 
Robert  D.  Patton 
HoYT  L.  Sherman 
Leo  G.  Staley 
Wilbur  M.  Tidd 
Frank  H.  Verhoek 
Arthur  Wirth 


Jorgen  M,  Birkeland,  Chairman 
The  Conjerence  Committee  of  the  Teaching  Staff 


NEW  OCCASIONS  AND  NEW  DUTIES 
By  James  Lewis  Morrill 

f"^ROM  the  northland  of  Paul  Bunyan  and  his  famed  Blue  Ox,  I 
bring  you  greetings!  Gargantuan  greetings  and  the  admiring 
fehcitations  of  a  sister  university.  Anniversaries  are  heartening 
occasions.  They  give  friends  the  welcome  opportunity  to  say  "Happy 
birthday."  They  afford  the  occasion  to  look  backward  and  proudly  to 
take  stock  of  great  accomplishment.  Better  still,  they  stimulate  a  look 
ahead,  offering  the  encouragement  and  confidence  that  come  from 
past  performance. 

It  is  a  long  way  from  Ohio  to  Minnesota;  yet  for  me  the  distance 
disappears  because  the  great  state  universities  in  both  places  hold  jointly 
the  highest  claim  upon  my  allegiance.  Both,  now,  are  "home"  to  me. 
Both  institutions  share  in  a  significant  historical  heritage.  Ohio  was 
the  first  state  carved  from  the  Northwest  Territory,  Minnesota  the  last 
— both  fruitfully  faithful  to  the  mandate  that  "schools  and  the  means  of 
education  shall  forever  be  encouraged." 

This  is  the  campus  of  my  remembrance.  Like  Antaeus  of  old,  what 
grateful  son  of  this  University  will  not  gain  strength  by  touching  the 
ground  upon  which  it  stands!  I  have  seen  again  today  the  buildings 
in  which  as  a  rather  frightened  Freshman  I  studied  thirty-eight  years 
ago  this  fall — incredibly,  more  than  half  the  whole  period  this  anni- 
versary celebrates!  How  fully  estabUshed  and  imposing  the  University 
seemed  to  me  then;  how  dignified  and  deeply  respected  its  leaders  and 
teachers  of  that  time!  The  urge  to  name  some  of  them  and  to  pay 
affectionate  tribute  to  their  inspiration  is  almost  irresistible.  But  how 
vastly  greater  today,  the  achievements  and  the  influence  of  this  great 
institution  which  has  become  in  truth  "the  developmental  arm  of 
the  state." 

Here  it  was  my  cherished  privilege  to  share  for  a  good  many  happy 
years  in  the  service  rendered  by  this  institution  under  leaders  whose 
vision  and  devotion  have  set  the  example  of  eminence  that  this  occasion 
celebrates.  "Prexy"  Thompson,  Dean  George  F.  Arps,  President 
George  W.  Rightmire,  Dean  William  McPherson,  President  Bcvis — 

23 


24  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

with  these  I  was  most  closely  and  responsibly  associated,  and  to  them 
my  debt  is  beyond  payment.  Each  of  their  names  evokes  for  me  the 
warm  remembrance  of  others  who  marched  (and  still  march,  many 
of  them)  in  the  vanguard,  sharing  the  burden  of  the  day.  We  worked 
together  in  what  we  beheved  were  great  enterprises.  Their  encour- 
agement and  generous  assistance  I  shall  not  ever  forget.  How  much 
all  who  love  this  University  owe  to  them! 

It  was  not,  however,  as  an  alumnus  nor  as  a  former  staff  member 
that  I  was  asked  to  bring  you  official,  though  none  the  less  sincere, 
greetings.  I  am  commissioned  to  convey  to  The  Ohio  State  University 
the  cordial  congratulations  and  profound  respect  of  the  Association  of 
Land-Grant  Colleges  and  Universities. 

This  Association  salutes  Ohio  State,  with  full  recognition  of  the 
fact  that  no  institution  in  our  whole  great  chain  of  the  states  and  terri- 
tories has  made,  historically,  a  richer  contribution  or  has  given  greater 
strength  through  distinguished  service  to  the  "land-grant  tradition." 
The  importance  of  this  encomium  will  be  best  understood  by  those 
sufficiently  familiar  with  the  history  of  higher  education  to  understand 
that  this  land-grant  tradition,  more  than  any  other  single  influence,  has 
shaped  the  present  pattern  of  higher  education  in  America. 

SINGLE  events  arise,  of  course,  from  the  influence  of  a  larger  environ- 
ment. The  early  1870's,  during  which  this  University  began  its 
life,  were  epochal  for  education  in  this  country  and  abroad. 

The  new  Ohio  School  Code  of  icSy^  marked  an  important  stage 
in  the  strengthening  of  public  education  in  this  state.  Seventy-live 
years  ago  exactly,  the  Ohio  General  Assembly  provided  for  the  estab- 
lishment and  maintenance  of  city  pubHc  libraries. 

In  England  the  Education  Act  of  1870,  amended  by  the  Elemen- 
tary Education  Act  of  1873,  laid  the  basis  of  all  subsequent  school 
legislation  for  that  nation.  Under  the  French  Third  Republic,  estab- 
lished in  1870,  foundations  were  laid  for  national  education  which 
endured  until  World  War  II.  EstabHshment  of  the  German  Empire 
in  1871,  under  Prussian  influence,  expanded  the  nationalistic  character 
of  education  in  that  country  unhappily,  but  it  also  broadened  the  base 
of  the  rem.arkable  state-supported  universities  which  introduced  the 


NEW  OCCASIONS   AND   NEW  DUTIES  25 

idea  of  research  into  American  universities.  The  intellectual  world 
was  in  ferment  from  the  discoveries  and  the  ideas  of  Darwin,  Huxley, 
Kelvin,  Helmholtz,  Pasteur,  Koch,  and  others,  as  historians  of  the 
time  have  pointed  out. 

Institutions  take  their  character  from  the  social  need  which  brings 
them  into  being,  and  from  the  character  and  capacity  of  their  response. 
In  the  United  States,  the  land-grant  colleges  arose  from  a  national 
need.  They  were  products  of  a  democratic  demand  which  the  higher 
education  of  their  day  neither  recognized  nor  would  have  been  disposed 
to  meet  if  it  had.  In  the  climate  of  then  contemporary  academic  atti- 
tudes, they  were  unwelcome  and  their  purposes  poorly  regarded.  If 
they  were  to  succeed,  they  must  not  only  prove  their  place  by  service 
in  each  state,  but  must  also  gain  strength  as  progressive  partners  in 
service  to  the  nation. 

It  was  a  hard  assignment,  requiring  leaders  of  social  insight,  lead- 
ers with  an  indomitable  faith  in  a  destiny  still  to  be  determined.  A 
little  cluster  of  great  men  gave  meaning  to  the  movement,  estabUshed 
with  the  signing  by  Abraham  Lincoln  of  the  Land  Grant  Act  of  1862. 
Important  among  those  who  helped  in  this  emancipation  of  the  entire 
concept  of  higher  education  are  several  Ohio  State  pioneers.  In  fact, 
the  first  Morrill  Bill,  vetoed  by  President  Buchanan,  might  never  have 
been  reintroduced  and  passed  as  the  Land  Grant  Act  except  for  the 
determined  leadership  of  an  Ohioan,  Senator  Ben  Wade  of  Ashtabula. 
Another  powerful  figure  in  the  nation-wide  movement  which  brought 
the  land-grant  colleges  into  being  was  Norton  S.  Townshend,  early 
trustee  and  first  professor  of  agriculture  at  this  University,  whose  efforts 
have  been  ranked  with  those  of  Jonathan  Turner  of  Illinois. 

A  distinguished  Ohio  State  pioneer,  Albert  B.  Graham,  my  long- 
time friend,  helped  conspicuously  to  give  form  and  future  to  the  most 
extensive  system  of  adult  education  in  the  world  today :  the  agricultural 
extension  service  conducted  jointly  by  the  federal  government  and  the 
states  through  their  land-grant  institutions. 

I  met  Mr.  Graham  first  when  I  was  a  student;  he  had  come  to  the 
basement  of  Brown  Hall  to  have  lantern  slides  made  in  the  photo- 
graphic laboratory  of  Professor  Frank  H.  Haskett.  I  can  remember 
my  first  sight  of  "A.  B.'s"  tall,  gaunt  frame,  his  rugged  countenance, 


26  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

the  twinkle  in  his  eye.  I  remember  the  rumble  of  his  deep  voice  and 
the  contagion  of  his  chuckle. 

He  was  Ohio  State's  first  superintendent  of  Agricultural  Extension 
— nearly  ten  years  before  Congress,  in  1914,  authorized  organization 
and  support  of  federal-state  extension  under  the  Smith-Lever  Act.  At 
the  time  I  first  knew  him,  Mr.  Graham  was  traveling  over  this  state — 
ten  thousand  miles  a  year — by  horse  and  buggy,  by  slow  train  or  afoot, 
in  winter  and  summer,  in  snow  or  hot  sun  or  rain,  lecturing  and 
organizing.  He  was  an  agricultural  evangel,  striving  to  elevate  the 
standards  of  rural  life,  preaching  the  doctrine  of  hard  work  and  sound 
character  among  rural  youth,  trying  to  improve  farm  practices  and 
agricultural  productivity  through  science. 

The  American  farmer  today  is  the  most  efficient  agricultural  pro- 
ducer in  the  world.  Last  year,  the  American  agricultural  extension 
service  reached  into  the  lives  and  work  of  nearly  five  million  farm 
families.  Ohio  can  claim  far  more  than  its  statistical  share  in  that 
achievement,  and  no  small  portion  of  the  credit  is  due  to  the  pioneer 
labors  of  Albert  B.  Graham. 

Since  the  passage  of  the  Land  Grant  Act,  countless  speakers  have 
traced  its  origins  and  have  sought  to  interpret  its  purposes  and  pros- 
pects. No  one  of  these  has  ever  equalled  the  prophetic  vision  of  The 
Ohio  State  University's  William  Oxley  Thompson.  Very  soon  after 
coming  here,  he  became  a  commanding  figure  in  the  land-grant  organ- 
ization. He  was  for  many  years  a  member  of  its  executive  committee, 
and  its  president  in  due  course. 

His  interpretation  of  "The  Mission  of  the  Land-Grant  Colleges,"  in 
his  first  major  address  to  the  Association  in  1903,  was  a  ringing  chal- 
lenge to  conceive  of  higher  education  in  new  terms.  He  spoke  with 
the  zeal  of  a  reformer.  He  urged  a  broadened  curriculum  adequate  to 
an  expanding  economy,  dependent  for  its  development  upon  science 
and  industry.  He  reminded  the  struggling  little  land-grant  colleges  of 
that  day  that  they  were  really  national  universities  and  must  meet  the 
measure  of  national  greatness. 

Nine  years  later,  addressing  the  Association  at  Atlanta,  Georgia, 
on  "The  Influence  of  the  Morrill  Act  upon  American  Higher  Educa- 
tion," he  spoke  with  the  greater  confidence  that  his  work  here  at  this 


NEW  OCCASIONS   AND   NEW  DUTIES  27 

University  had  clearly  justified.  He  stressed  the  spreading  service  of 
the  land-grant  institutions  to  the  children  of  the  common  people,  their 
strength  at  the  grass  roots.  Reasoning  from  the  land-grant  precedent 
of  federal  support  in  co-operation  with  the  states,  he  spelled  out  thirty- 
six  years  ago  the  completely  convincing  argument  for  federal  aid  to  the 
public  schools  which  Congress  still,  incomprehensibly,  lacks  the  cour- 
age or  conviction  to  concede  but  which  is  inevitable. 

Practical  utility,  not  snobbish  academic  respectabiUty  nor  any 
notion  of  intellectual  aristocracy,  must  be  the  test  of  institutional  integ- 
rity, he  declared.  "An  institution,"  he  said,  "is  to  be  operated  for  the 
good  it  can  do;  for  the  people  it  can  serve;  for  the  science  it  can  pro- 
mote; and  for  the  civilization  it  can  advance."^  That  summons  needs 
no  revision  today. 

There  are  land-grant  state  universities  today  larger  than  our  own. 
Some  may  claim  greater  eminence  in  this  or  that  area  of  scholarship 
and  science,  conceding  superior  prestige  in  other  areas  to  us.  None 
can  claim  a  richer  contribution  to  the  development  of  the  philosophy 
of  the  land-grant  idea  and  to  its  realization.  In  WilHam  Oxley  Thomp- 
son, The  Ohio  State  University  furnished  the  foremost  spokesman  of 
democracy  in  higher  education  in  his  generation — and  that  was  the 
generation  which  set  the  bench  marks  upon  which  future  advance 
must  be  based. 

The  great  modern  state  university  has  outgrown,  of  course,  the 
early  and  limited  land-grant  college  assignment  of  "agriculture  and 
the  mechanic  arts."  It  takes  all  knowledge  for  its  province  and  has 
enlarged  incalculably  the  modest  beginnings  of  research  which  the 
federal  government  made  possible  for  the  land-grant  institutions  under 
the  Hatch  Act  of  1887.  But  let  no  professor  on  its  staff  ever  forget  the 
land-grant  origin  which  gave  vitality  and  impetus  to  the  whole  state- 
university  development  in  this  country. 

PAST  glories  are  the  proper  subject  of  any  anniversary,  but  only  when 
they  provide  an  occasion  for  the  appraisal  of  past  achievement  as 
the  basis  of  future  upgrading  and  ongoing.  The  difficulty  of  organized 
education  is  now  just  what  it  has  always  been:  the  difficulty  of  perspec- 

^  Proceedings  of  the  Twenty-Sixth  Annual  Convention  of  the  Association  of  Amer- 
ican Agricultural  Colleges  and  Experiment  Stations,  p.  92. 


28  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

tive,  of  thinking  outside  the  system  in  which  we  find  ourselves.  "The 
chief  danger  inhering  in  university  circles,"  my  distinguished  Minne- 
sota predecessor,  the  late  President  Lotus  D.  Coflman,  once  warned  "is 
that  they  will  become  intellectualized  and  standardized  and  that  in 
consequence  their  pliability  and  usefulness  .  .  .  will  be  diminished,  if 
not  destroyed.. . .  It  is  certain  that  any  university  which  loses  step  with 
current  movements,  which  fails  to  give  consideration  to  the  sweeping 
changes  that  are  occurring  in  every  part  of  the  world,  will  soon  become 
archaic  and  incompetent  to  educate  youth  for  the  exercise  of  lead- 
ership."^ 

New  occasions  must  teach  new  duties.  New  challenges  confront 
American  higher  education  today  from  a  dozen  directions.  The  Ohio 
State  University  is  well  aware  of  them,  we  know;  and  we  sense  a 
vibrant  urge  and  energy  in  this  University  today  to  meet  them,  if  the 
means  can  be  provided.  Important  among  those  challenges  is  the 
present-day  demand  for  a  better  job  of  "general  education." 

The  "sweeping  changes  ...  in  every  part  of  the  world,"  of  which 
President  CofFman  spoke,  have  occurred — and  in  a  time  much  shorter 
than  the  seventy-five  years  which  this  anniversary  marks.  Two  world 
wars  and  a  paralyzing  depression  have  been  accompanied  by  the  stag- 
gering sweep  of  proletarian  socialism  over  the  minds  of  men,  with  its 
constriction  of  individual  freedom.  Is  this  the  hopeful  picture  of 
"humanity  on  the  march"?  Or  is  it  the  disappointing  "revolt  of  the 
masses,"  pictured  by  Ortega  y  Gasset  as  plunging  all  civilization  toward 
a  totalitarian  statism  in  which  humanity  will  have  developed  "all  the 
talents  except  the  talent  to  make  use  of  them"  as  he  says? 

Youth  needs  to  know.  Plainly,  the  traditional  academic  approach 
to  hberal  education  has  not  kept  step  with  world  crisis.  There  must 
be  likewise  among  us  an  uneasy  awareness  that  the  success  of  our 
highly  specialized  land-grant  college  training  is  not  sufficient  unto  the 
day,  or  the  evil  thereof. 

The  danger  in  higher  education  today  is  not  that  it  is  over- 
professionalized.  The  increasing  complexity  of  modern  life  will  require 
more  specialization  than  ever.   The  danger  is  that  our  teaching  and 

*  "The  Obligation  of  the  State  University  to  the  Social  Order."  The  State  Univer- 
sity: Its  Work,  and  Problems.  Minneapolis,  Minnesota:  University  of  Minnesota  Press, 
^934-  PP  206-207. 


NEW   OCCASIONS   AND   NEW   DUTIES  29 

learning  are  under-liberalized.  It  is  from  the  liberal  and  social  studies 
that  our  value-judgments  come,  and  the  ethical  conclusions  to  guide 
action.  But  action  is  the  test,  and  the  job  of  general  education  is  to 
make  the  humanities  more  functional,  more  relevant  to  life. 

There  is  likewise  the  challenge  of  larger  numbers  who  must  learn. 
Some  people  seem  staggered  by  the  recent  recommendations  of  the 
President's  Commission  on  Higher  Education,  which  urges  by  1960 
a  doubling  of  present  bulging  college  enrollments,  to  be  made  possible 
largely  by  increased  federal  support.  Perhaps  the  estimates  are  extrava- 
gant, but  those  steeped  in  the  land-grant  tradition  will  recognize  merely 
an  extension  of  both  the  principles  and  policies  which  enabled  them 
to  accomplish  the  democratization  of  higher  education.  Surely  they 
will  not  shrink  from  that  assignment,  the  burden  of  which  they 
must  bear. 

The  challenge  of  a  greatly  expanded  need  for  adult  education,  also 
made  clear  by  the  President's  Commission,  must  be  faced.  It  is  grown 
men  and  women  who  must  make  the  hard  decisions  of  the  day.  Who 
among  us  knows  enough .'' 

Agricultural  extension,  inspired  and  invented  by  the  land-grant 
colleges,  has  developed  the  "know-how"  to  tackle  the  job.  We  are 
already  hard  at  work  helping  farm  families  to  understand  not  merely 
the  techniques  of  scientific  farm  practices  and  production  but  also  the 
social  significance  and  possibilities  of  rural  life — its  meaning  and  val- 
ues, its  dignity  and  democracy.  I  am  convinced  that  the  "ag-extension" 
way  can  be  one  tested  approach  to  the  now  larger  challenge  in  adult 
education. 

THE  land-grant  colleges  were  a  changing  society's  response  to  un- 
met needs.  Their  vigor  sprang  from  the  faith  that  they  were 
tackling  a  job  that  was  new  and  necessary.  One  of  their  present  tasks  is 
both  old  and  new  but  still  necessary :  the  never-ending  defense  of  free- 
dom, hard-pressed  in  the  world  today  by  foes  within  as  well  as  without. 
That  is  the  lesson  of  the  "cold  war"  with  its  Trojan-horse  tactics  in  this 
country.  Universities,  above  all  institutions  in  society,  must  serve  the 
cause  of  freedom  because  only  in  that  climate  can  they  survive  to 
serve  at  all. 


30  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

It  is  the  imperative  business  of  government  to  hunt  dow^n  and 
prosecute — but  always  under  "due  process  of  law" — the  collaborators 
with  hostile  foreign  governments.  Facing  these  dangers,  universities 
must  not  suppose  themselves  "above  the  battle."  They,  too,  have  the 
inescapable  obligation  of  patriotic  loyalty. 

But  the  roles  of  government  and  education  are  different.  It  is  the 
conflict  of  ideas,  not  of  espionage  or  armies,  with  which  universities 
are  best  equipped  to  deal — and  their  long-range  rehabiUty  in  this  regard 
has  been  proved  through  centuries.  Let  them  stand  firmly  and  un- 
coerced for  the  principle  of  freedom — freedom  to  think  and  speak  and 
teach,  subject  always  to  openly  assumed  responsibility  and  the  re- 
straints of  law. 

Let  us  remember,  too,  that  the  ideas  which  have  saved  civilizations 
from  stagnation  and  decay  have  always  been  upsetting,  some  might 
say  subversive,  in  the  sense  that  they  overturn  our  prejudices  and  pre- 
conceptions. In  science,  in  economics,  and  in  politics  this  has  been  so. 

"A  clash  of  doctrines  is  not  a  disaster — it  is  an  opportunity,"  the 
philosopher  Whitehead  has  said.  There  is  no  safer  place  for  the  clash 
of  ideas  than  in  universities  where  the  instinct  of  disinterested  analysis 
and  of  relentless  criticism  is  deeply  ingrained.  Despite  occasional  loose 
comment  to  the  contrary  by  those  who  do  regard  as  a  disaster  the  clash 
with  doctrines  contrary  to  their  own,  universities  above  all  places 
will  resist  the  erosion  of  freedom  and  the  regimentation  that  totalitar- 
ianism, of  either  the  left  or  right,  requires. 

Surely,  in  the  tensions  of  this  or  any  other  time,  universities  must 
stand  as  islands  of  intelligence  and  reason  in  the  swirling  main  stream 
of  excited  propaganda.  They  must  resist  the  understandably  frightened 
but  indefensible  surrender  of  freedom.  Surely,  two  and  a  half  million 
picked  American  youth  at  work  in  the  calmer  cHmate  of  learning  and 
scholarship  are  a  hopeful  hostage  to  the  long-range  security  of  the 
nation.  How  reassuring,  in  our  concern  for  the  future  of  freedom,  to 
think  of  our  whole  land,  as  former  President  Lowell  of  Harvard  once 
phrased  it,  "aglow  with  universities  and  colleges  like  a  field  with  camp- 
fires  of  an  army  on  the  march." 

We  have  only  attempted  to  appraise  the  impact  of  world  war  and 
world  change  upon  education  in  this  current  mid-century,  and  to  pre- 


NEW  OCCASIONS   AND   NEW  DUTIES  3I 

diet  the  problems  which  colleges  and  universities  must  newly  meet  and 
somehow  help  to  solve.  Yet,  who  will  lack  faith  that  this  University, 
which  has  so  nobly  justified  the  generation  which  conceived  it,  will 
fill  its  even  larger  place  in  the  future?  Ours  will  be  still  the  historic 
American  faith  of  Horace  Mann,  "father  of  the  common  schools,"  faith 
in  the  improvability  of  mankind  through  education — the  faith,  as 
William  James  declared,  that  "the  world  stands  really  malleable,  wait- 
ing to  receive  its  final  touches  at  our  hands." 


OUR  DIAMOND  JUBILEE 
By  Howard  L.  Bevis 

STUDENTS  of  the  Scriptures,  now  unfortunately  fewer  than  in  for- 
mer times,  will  be  familiar  with  the  ancient  Hebrew  institutional 
celebration,  the  Year  of  Jubilee.  Students  of  contemporary  his- 
tory (and  those  of  us  who  seem  old  to  students  now  in  college)  will  re- 
member the  Diamond  Jubilee  in  Queen  Victoria's  time,  celebrated 
throughout  the  Empire  upon  which  it  then  was  confidently  believed 
the  sun  would  never  set.  In  planning  for  this  celebration  of  Ohio 
State's  seventy-fifth  anniversary,  we  fell  almost  unconsciously  into  the 
habit  of  calling  it  the  Diamond  Jubilee;  and  in  spite  of  some  conscious 
effort  to  cast  the  name  off,  it  has  stuck.  Perhaps  it  is  just  as  well,  for 
there  is,  I  believe,  an  underlying  significance  of  some  moment  in  the 
comparison  of  Queen  Victoria's  Jubilee  with  ours. 

Queen  Victoria's  statesmen  and  her  guests  from  every  land  cele- 
brated British  pre-eminence  in  a  completed  world;  a  world  to  which, 
to  be  sure,  a  few  finishing  touches  remained  to  be  added,  but  one,  nev- 
ertheless, already  the  best  of  all  possible  worlds,  one  in  which  mankind 
under  the  benevolent  tutelage  of  the  "enlightened  countries"  would 
continue  to  live  and  grow  in  never-ending  progress  toward  the  condi- 
tion of  those  countries  themselves.  The  physical  abundance  produced 
by  the  Industrial  Revolution  and  the  exploitation  of  the  "new"  conti- 
nents had  minimized  at  least  one  of  the  major  causes  of  war;  and  from 
St.  Helena  onward,  the  world  at  large  had  prospered  in  comparative 
peace.  It  was  reasonably  believed  by  most  responsible  publicists  that 
there  could  never  be  another  great  war.  Indeed,  why  should  there  be.? 
Peace  paid  so  much  better.  Democracy  was  patently  the  predestined 
path  of  political  development.  Education  was  spreading  its  disposition 
toward  reason  and  harmony  further  and  further  among  the  masses  of 
the  people.  If  in  one  or  two  great  countries  the  anachronism  of  abso- 
lute monarchy  still  prevailed,  it  was  assuredly  an  historical  holdover 
which  would  gradually  disappear  as  conditions  produced  the  occasion 
for  its  departure. 

For  almost  a  century,  this  nearly  completed  world  had  been  build- 
ing.  Young  people  knew  no  other.  Grandparents  who  recalled  more 

32 


OUR   DIAMOND   JUBILEE  33 

troublous  times  were  dying  off.  The  paths  were  straight.  The  rules  of 
success  were  known.  And  any  one  of  good  will,  character,  energy,  and 
the  proper  moral  orientation  could  attain  success  if  he  followed  the 
rules.  The  Year  of  Jubilee  had  come  indeed,  and  for  almost  another 
generation  the  western  world  lived  in  the  glow  of  its  effulgence. 

Tacitly  accepting  Britain's  globe-circling  omnipotence  as  a  per- 
manent fact,  Americans,  nevertheless,  felt  an  insular  superiority  in  the 
continental  homeland  they  had  established  between  two  oceans.  What 
if  they  still  lacked  certain  of  the  refinements  of  an  older  civilization? 
Some  thought  such  refinements  effete.  Others  were  sure  we  could  have 
them  when  we  wanted  them,  for  we  were  growing  rich.  An  unex- 
ploited  continent  dowered  with  every  natural  good,  together  with 
cheap  money  and  cheap  labor  from  the  less  fortunate  Old  World 
countries,  was  filling  our  barns  and  lading  our  tables.  When  or  where 
had  so  many  eaten  so  well,  lived  so  independently,  looked  forward  with 
such  confidence  to  a  satisfying  and  expanding  future?  In  this  period 
The  Ohio  State  University  came  of  age,  emerged  from  adolescence  into 
mature  Ufe  with  all  the  expectations  and  most  of  the  inexperience  com- 
mon to  the  adolescents  of  its  time.  Only  those  who  are  students  of 
contemporary  history  (or  those  of  us  who  seem  old  to  those  in  college 
now)  can  appreciate  how  shaky  were  those  foundations,  how  different 
the  future  for  which  Ohio  State  must  now  prepare  its  students. 

Whether  one  accepts  or  disagrees  with  Mr.  Toynbee's  thesis  that 
Western  civilization  is  centered  in  and  based  on  Europe,  he  is  bound 
to  observe  that  the  settled  fixity  of  Victoria's  closing  days  is  shattered 
beyond  repair.  Wars  have  become  almost  the  norm  of  modern  life, 
certainly  not  the  impossibility.  Blue  water,  upon  which  Britain's  argo- 
sies sailed  to  the  littoral  reaches  of  every  land,  has  now  been  largely 
replaced  by  the  trackless  air  as  a  medium  of  communication.  Britain 
herself,  paramount  because  she  was  Mistress  of  the  Seas,  together  with 
most  of  the  contemporary  great  powers  of  Victoria's  day,  has  shrunk 
to  secondary  significance,  leaving  the  world  either  to  be  exploited  or 
developed  as  may  please  the  two  remaining  colossi,  the  United  States 
and  Russia. 

With  only  passing  reference  to  the  volumes  which  have  been  writ- 
ten to  account  for  the  state  of  the  world  in  Victoria's  day,  we  may 
hazard  the  assertion  that  there  were  two  major  forces  which,  after 


34  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

operating  to  create  the  world  hegemony  of  western  Europe,  have 
latterly  with  equal  efficacy  co-operated  to  bring  about  its  decline.  Those 
two  forces  were  industrialism,  with  its  handmaiden,  technical  and 
scientific  research,  and  democracy,  generally  concomitant  with  indus- 
triahsm,  though  an  uneasy  bedfellow  a  good  deal  of  the  time.  As  from 
a  stone  cast  into  the  water,  the  impact  of  these  forces  has  spread  out  in 
wider  and  wider  circles,  while  the  center  itself  has  flattened  to  a  faintly 
undulant  calm.  Countries  once  peripheral  have  now  become  the  loci 
of  power  and  productivity.  Europe  now  subsists  by  their  aid.  This 
observation  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to  us,  for  in  the  United  States 
this  shift  of  kinetic  energy  is  most  strikingly  manifest.  More  especially 
is  it  of  importance  to  our  American  universities,  for  without  them 
the  United  States  could  not  have  attained  its  present  commanding 
position  and,  with  the  partial  ecHpse  of  the  Old  World  centers  of  learn- 
ing, upon  them  rests  in  awesome  measure  the  responsibility  for  the 
immediate  future  of  mankind.  Seldom  in  history  have  issues  of  such 
world-wide  significance  been  so  sharply  and  so  completely  drawn.  Two 
ways  of  life,  one  authoritarian  and  the  other  democratic,  each  zealously 
championed  by  one  of  the  great  powers,  contend  for  the  hearts  and 
minds  of  men.  Each  champion  seems  willing  to  fight  to  the  death,  if 
that  be  necessary. 

WITH  a  dim  but  growing  sense  of  higher  education's  position  at 
this  juncture  of  world  history.  The  Ohio  State  University  cele- 
brates this  year  its  Diamond  Jubilee.  But  in  what  a  different  atmos- 
phere from  that  which  characterized  Victoria's  Jubilee,  in  what  a  dif- 
ferent spirit!  Who,  now,  has  a  sense  of  completeness,  of  established  and 
predictable  order,  of  having  arrived  at  a  permanent  plateau  of  continu- 
ing success  ?  Who,  now,  can  descry  a  future  that  holds  the  assurance  of 
continuity  of  Western  hegemony  over  the  other  peoples  of  the  world  ? 
Of  this  only  can  we  be  reasonably  sure:  Without  the  universities, 
America  would  not  now  be  one  of  the  two  remaining  great  powers; 
and  upon  the  universities  will  largely  depend  the  direction  which 
America  can  give  to  events  that  are  to  come. 

It  is  not  in  the  spirit  of  this  occasion  to  exult  in  our  progress  from 
humble  beginnings  nor  to  take  to  ourselves  glory  because  we  have 
grown   large.    The   students   to   whom   the   Ohio   Agricultural  and 


OUR   DIAMOND   JUBILEE  35 

Mechanical  College  opened  its  classes  seventy-five  years  ago  were  few, 
but  even  fewer  were  they  at  Harvard  of  whom  the  elder  Holmes  sang: 

And  who  was  on  the  Catalogue 

When  college  was  begun  ? 
Two  nephews  of  the  President 

And  the  Professor's  son. 

Our  25,456  registrants  of  a  year  ago  were,  of  course,  a  goodly  com- 
pany, but  equal  and  greater  numbers  thronged  other  American  cam- 
puses; and  we  should  have  been  derelict,  indeed,  had  we  taken  fewer 
than  offered  to  come  from  the  confines  of  our  state.  We  are  gratified, 
of  course,  to  have  grown  steadily  in  the  esteem  of  our  General  As- 
sembly from  the  time  when  it  hesitantly  gave  us  the  sum  of  twenty- 
five  thousand  dollars  with  the  stern  admonition  that  never,  never  must 
so  extravagant  a  request  be  repeated,  to  the  time  when,  for  operating 
expense  and  capital  improvements  combined,  it  appropriated  to  us  in 
one  biennium  more  than  forty-two  million  dollars.  We  are  happy,  of 
course,  to  be  able  to  offer  one  of  the  most  comprehensive  programs  to 
be  found  in  any  university  catalogue;  to  have,  at  our  peak  of  enroll- 
ment, a  ratio  of  more  than  one  instructor  to  ten  students.  We  rejoice, 
even,  in  the  inconvenience  you  are  having  today  in  picking  your  way 
about  our  campus  through  the  excavations  and  piles  of  building  mate- 
rial which  promise  facilities  more  nearly  adequate  to  the  tasks  which 
our  constituents  have  laid  upon  us.  We  take,  of  course,  a  proper  satis- 
faction in  all  of  these  things  and  many  more  with  which  I  shall  not 
weary  you;  but  we  have  not  asked  you  here  to  help  us  celebrate  the 
fact  that  Ohio  State  is  big.  That  fact  is  no  longer  news,  nor  is  it  unique 
to  this  institution.  Our  concern  is  with  the  quality  of  what  we  are 
endeavoring  to  accomplish,  the  goals  to  which  we  bend  our  energies, 
the  capacity  we  can  achieve  to  bear  our  part  in  the  critical  days  ahead 
for  America  and  for  mankind. 

We  can  smile  now  with  complacent  hindsight  at  the  forecast  made 
of  this  University  in  1870  by  the  Cleveland  Herald:  "We  make  the 
prophecy  that  the  time  will  prove  the  College  [now  Ohio  State]  to 
be  a  failure  and  the  fund  [for  its  establishment]  to  have  been  wasted." 
The  Cleveland  Herald  is  now  defunct. 

We  are  reasonably  sure  now  that  the  enterprise  has  not  failed  and 


36  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

that  the  money  has  not  been  wasted.  But  questions  open  up  before  us 
as  we  today  peer  into  the  future,  as  doubtful  of  definite  answers  as 
was  President  Orton  when  the  very  continuance  of  the  University  was 
at  stake.  When  we  review  the  early  decisions  our  administrative  pre- 
decessors had  to  make,  it  becomes  apparent,  in  retrospect,  that  those  of 
greatest  long-range  importance  were  not  basically  dissimilar  to  those 
we  face.  They,  too,  concerned  the  character  of  the  institution. 

SINCE  this  was  a  "Land-Grant  College"  established  with  funds  pro- 
vided by  the  federal  government  (supplemented  somewhat  by  a 
grant  from  Franklin  County),  that  character  was  determined  by  the 
purposes  of  the  Morrill  Act  and  the  presumptive  intent  of  Congress. 
Without  question,  the  act  contemplated  a  new  departure  in  advanced 
education.  It  spoke  specifically  of  "agriculture  and  the  mechanic  arts." 
It  was  intended  to  benefit  the  many  instead  of  the  selected  few.  It 
pointed  toward  technologies  and  the  sciences  which  should  support 
them.  It  aimed  at  occupational  proficiency  and  the  personal  advantages 
its  attainment  would  bring.  It  looked  toward  material  prosperity  based 
upon  the  exploitation  and  development  of  our  nation's  resources,  then 
largely  latent  because  our  people  did  not  know  how  to  use  them.  All 
this  was  clear,  and  because  of  this  specific  clarity  many  argued  that 
the  entire  range  of  the  new  school's  functions  was  subsumed  under  the 
heading  of  "material  benefit." 

A  fairly  cogent  case,  indeed,  could  be  made  for  this  view  of  our 
chartered  functions.  Were  there  not  already  throughout  the  land  col- 
leges dedicated  to,  and  experienced  in,  the  training  for  culture  and 
spiritual  advancement.''  Was  it  to  be  supposed  that  these  new  "mate- 
rial" institutions  could  perform  that  task  as  well  or,  even  if  they  could, 
that  the  great  paternal  government  intended  to  support  competitors  in 
an  enterprise  already  fraught  with  financial  hazard  and  dependent  on 
professorial  devotion?  In  any  event,  would  it  profit  students  who  came 
to  learn  about  better  cattle,  more  productive  soil,  or  the  way  to  lay  out 
the  roadbed  of  a  railway  to  spend  time  on  literature,  languages,  philoso- 
phy, or  the  theories  of  political  economy  ? 

Nothing,  it  seems  to  me,  more  clearly  attests  the  statesmanship  of 
the  University's  earUest  officers  than  the  decision  of  the  Trustees, 
announced  in  1874 — one  year  after  classes  were  opened — to  provide 


OUR    DIAMOND    JUBILEE  37 

"a  broad  and  liberal  curriculum  ...  for  trained  and  educated  minds 
ever  have,  and  ever  will  take  precedence,  over  ignorance  and  limited 
knowledge,  in  all  the  affairs  of  life,  and  it  is  a  mistaken  notion  that  a 
narrow  and  technical  education  is  all  that  is  required  in  the  industrial 
pursuits  of  men."^  Long  discussion  had  preceded  this  pronouncement. 
For  example,  Governor  Brough,  in  his  message  of  1865,  had  said:  "It 
is  evident  that  the  intention  of  the  enactment  is  to  institute  a  new  and 
distinct  species  of  education.  .  .  .  the  instruction  of  the  industrial  classes 
,  .  .  incidentally  for  their  own  benefit,  but  actually  for  the  increase  of 
national  production  of  wealth." 

The  Trustees  refused  to  accept  such  a  narrow  interpretation.  They 
would  "as  in  duty  bound  by  act  of  Congress,  make  the  principles  of 
Agriculture  and  the  Mechanic  Arts  'leading  objects'  in  their  institu- 
tion," but  they  did  not  "desire  to  educate  those  confided  to  them  simply 
as  Farmers  or  Mechanics,  but  as  men,  fitted  by  education  and  attain- 
ments for  the  greatest  usefulness  and  the  highest  duties  of  citizenship."'" 
Nor  did  the  Board  forget  women.  At  the  very  outset,  it  decided  to 
accept  "all  persons,"  thereby  including  women  who  met  the  qualifica- 
tions for  enrollment. 

The  Board's  statesmanship  in  holding  to  the  broader  pattern  is 
accentuated  by  the  fact  that  this  generated  greater  opposition  in  the 
General  Assembly  and  made  it  harder  to  obtain  funds  for  what  was 
sometimes  called  a  "godless  institution,  where  the  faith  of  earlier  years 
would  be  eaten  away." 

IN  TRACING  our  development  from  that  day  to  this,  all  friends  of  edu- 
cational progress  in  America  can  find  enduring  satisfaction  in  the 
knowledge  that  the  faith  of  our  institutional  fathers  has,  in  the  main, 
been  kept.  In  keeping  that  faith,  we  have  held  fellowship  with  the 
faithful  in  other  states  where  similar  patterns  have  developed  and  com- 
parable outcomes  have  been  experienced.  Our  colleges  of  agriculture 
and  the  mechanic  arts,  together  with  those  preparing  for  other  profes- 
sional and  occupational  pursuits,  have  grown  up  about  core  colleges 

^  Third  Annual  Report  of  the  Trustees  of  the  Ohio  Agricultural  and  Mechanical 
College  to  the  Governor  of  the  State.   Columbus:  Nevins  and  Myers,  1874.    p.  9. 

^  Second  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Ohio  Agri- 
cultural and  Mechanical  College,  for  the  Year  Ending  January  4,  187 j.  Columbus:  Nevins 
and  Myers,  State  Printers,   1873.  p.  7. 


38  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

of  liberal  arts  and  sciences,  which  are  the  centers  of  institutional  life. 
These  core  colleges  are  taking  their  place  with  the  best.  In  pressing  the 
advancement  of  our  several  units,  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  on  these  cen- 
tral and  vital  areas  that  emphasis  should  be  placed.  Although  we  at 
Ohio  State  know  that  changes  cannot  be  made  quickly  nor  by  fiat,  we 
are  constantly  endeavoring  to  implement  our  faith  in  the  importance 
of  these  core  colleges.  We  do  not  lightly  promise  the  attainment  of 
our  goals,  but  we  do  promise  ceaseless  dissatisfaction  with  mediocrity. 

Whatever  comfort  we  may  take  in  the  limited  fulfillment  of  our 
founding  fathers'  vision,  we  know  full  well  that  this  is  no  day  for  com- 
placent satisfaction.  Were  their  objectives  in  specie  still  our  objectives, 
we  should  yet  have  far  to  go.  But  their  world  is  not  our  world.  Their 
preoccupation  with  the  character  of  the  institution  is  our  preoccupa- 
tion; but  that  character,  that  specific  character,  must  change  with 
the  changing  times. 

The  future  is  so  clouded  that  we  can  only  grope  for  direction.  Yet 
we  must  plan,  if  only  to  have  plans  to  depart  from.  In  planning  for 
the  future  of  Ohio  State,  this  question  of  major  importance  immedi- 
ately presents  itself:  Shall  we  seek  to  expand  our  undergraduate 
numbers  to  the  limit  of  our  competitive  ability  or  shall  we  place  our 
emphasis  increasingly  on  graduate  and  professional  work  in  which 
research  and  service  shall  stand  upon  their  own  feet,  financially  and 
otherwise  ? 

We  may  assume,  I  think,  at  this  stage  that  research  is  essential  to 
greatness  or  even  respectability  in  any  university.  We  may  assume,  too, 
that  an  undergraduate  base  is  desirable  in  a  complete  university  struc- 
ture. The  question  is  one  of  emphasis. 

In  the  growing  competition  which  higher  education  must  face  for 
its  share  of  the  tax  dollar — competition  with  welfare,  highways,  health, 
and  so  on — increasing  attendon  must  be  given  to  the  economy  and 
efficiency  of  the  state's  entire  educational  plant,  pubUcly  and  privately 
administered.  This  consideration  clearly  indicates  the  decentraUzed 
utilization  of  all  existing  college  facilities  adequate  for  the  purpose. 
The  same  consideration,  however,  as  clearly  indicates  that  the  "expen- 
sive" work — for  example,  that  in  engineering  and  medicine,  requiring 
much  costly  equipment;  that  in  the  graduate  and  professional  categor- 
ies, requiring  highly  paid  instructors  for  relatively  small  classes;  that 


The  Academic  Procession 


r4  ^^i   y  -L 

President  Bevis  Speaking  at  the  Convocation 


OUR   DIAMOND    JUBILEE  39 

in  research,  requiring  both  costly  equipment  and  costly  faculty — be 
considerably  centralized  to  avoid  duplication  and  to  obtain  maximum 
results  from  the  expenditures  of  funds  and  effort. 

It  would  seem  the  part  of  wisdom,  therefore,  to  re-emphasize  the 
policy  established  by  the  state  legislature  in  1904  and  confirmed  by  the 
Inter-University  Council  in  1941,  namely,  to  make  The  Ohio  State 
University  increasingly  a  center  of  research,  of  graduate  and  profes- 
sional work,  and  to  share  gladly  with  our  sister  institutions  the  giving 
of  undergraduate  instruction. 

OUR  attempt  to  plan  for  the  next  steps  is  rooted  in  our  belief  that 
satisfactory  life  in  America  is  vitally  and  increasingly  dependent 
upon  the  continual  development  of  American  higher  education.  Satis- 
factory life  in  the  American  sense  implies  production  adequate  to  the 
people's  wants,  economic  and  political  organization  adequate  to  the 
maintenance  of  complex  modern  life,  and  cultural  ideals  infused  by 
spiritual  aspirations  within  the  reach  of  more  and  more  of  the  people. 
This  burden  rests  peculiarly  upon  American  higher  education,  for  war 
and  totalitarian  philosophy  have  gravely  impaired  the  capacities  of 
Old  World  schools. 

The  pressure  of  population  upon  subsistence,  foreseen  by  Malthus, 
has  been  averted  since  his  day  largely  by  the  discovery  and  occupation 
of  new  lands  and  the  utilization  of  unappropriated  resources  to  be  had 
for  the  taking.  This  period  of  living  on  Nature's  bounty  is  visibly 
approaching  the  end.  Life  can  continue  to  multiply  and  proceed  at 
accelerating  tempo  only  if  human  science  and  human  industry  can 
transmute  the  resources  of  the  soil  we  now  possess  into  more  and  more 
and  newer  and  newer  things.  The  ingenious  manipulation  of  what  is 
already  known  is  no  longer  sufficient.  Basic  research  for  useful  knowl- 
edge and  the  dissemination  of  that  knowledge  among  those  who  can 
apply  it  are  indispensable  to  the  continued  civilization  of  the  world. 
Basic  research  and  the  wide  dissemination  of  knowledge  are  peculiarly 
the  functions  of  modern  higher  education.  Without  its  services  we 
should  have  lost  the  war.  Without  them,  life  in  peace,  if  such  peace 
be  possible,  must  degenerate  into  a  straitened  regime  of  gradually 
diminished  standards  until  the  grim  law  of  biologic  balance  has  its  way. 

In  science  and  the  dissemination  of  knowledge  lies  the  only  hope 


40  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

of  adequate  sustenance  and  supply.  But  it  is  a  hope  of  unexampled 
brilliance.  Standards  of  physical  living  never  before  glimpsed  in  human 
history  lie  within  our  reach.  Higher  education  is  essential  to  their 
realization. 

But  the  mastery  of  Nature  and  her  physical  hws,  although  indis- 
pensable to  widespread  human  happiness,  of  itself  can  avail  nothing 
without  the  development  of  political  and  economic  systems  which  will 
facilitate  the  distribution  of  the  products  of  our  industry  and  safeguard 
ethical  and  enlightened  human  conduct.  How  to  stimulate  initiative 
without  encouraging  oppression,  how  to  relieve  misfortune  without 
fostering  dependence,  how  to  preserve  peace  and  order  without  yield- 
ing to  despotism,  how  to  maintain  democracy  without  confusion  and 
impotence — these  are  but  some  of  the  problems  to  which  we  need  better 
answers.  Higher  education  must  seek  and  find  them. 

How  to  fashion  a  state  to  serve  individual  men  is  but  one-half  the 
task.  How  to  build  and  develop  the  men  is  the  other.  More  than 
physical  plenty  is  required — much  more.  For  thousands  of  years,  the 
human  race  has  been  recording  its  efforts  to  cultivate  and  develop  its 
mental  and  emotional  capacities.  In  our  new-found  zeal  for  science 
and  material  betterment  we  are  in  danger  of  neglecting  this  infinite 
store  of  human  experience.  Not  that  the  record  is  a  closed  book;  higher 
education  has  its  continuing  contribution  to  make  here  also.  It  is  a 
vastly  profitable  book  in  which  the  greatest  of  all  time  have  written; 
and  higher  education  is  its  best  interpreter. 

Beyond  knowledge  and  reason,  beyond  the  thrills  and  transports 
of  emotion,  there  is  faith,  that  indefinable  faculty  which  fastens  upon 
objectives  dimly  sensed  and  unlocks  capacities  otherwise  unrealized. 
Education  which  ignores  faith  must,  in  my  opinion,  retrograde  to 
ultimate  sterility. 

If  in  some  respects  we  know  more  than  we  did  in  1873,  the  de- 
mands upon  our  knowledge  and  wisdom  have  made  our  relative  prog- 
ress small.  If  there  is  any  relative  gain,  it  is,  I  believe,  in  the  increased 
sense  of  our  own  finite  capacity  in  the  presence  of  infinite  need.  I 
believe,  too,  that  we  are  less  assured  in  the  mastery  of  material  things, 
more  humbly  ready  for  the  guidance  of  Infinite  Good.  In  a  world 
adrift  from  moral  anchorage,  as  much  of  it  seems  to  be,  this  belief  may 
seem  precarious.   I  still  hold  it.   Its  validity  is  the  hope  of  the  world. 


THE  FIRST  CONFERENCE 

Chairman: 

Charles  E.  MacQuigg,  Dean,  College  of  Engineering,  The  Ohio 
State  University 

Speakers: 

Charles  F.  Kettering,  Board  of  Trustees,  The  Ohio  State  University 
Cornelius  Kruse,  Chairman  of  the  Department  of  Philosophy, 
Wesleyan  University 


OPENING  REMARKS 
By  Charles  E.  MacQuigg 

BIRTHDAY  parties  traditionally  are  happy  occasions.  In  childhood, 
they  are  gleefully  awaited  for  the  generous  rations  of  ice  cream 
and  cake  that  they  provide.  In  youth,  they  mark  the  coming  of 
the  day  of  emancipation  from  necessary  repressions.  In  old  age,  they 
are  endured,  if  we  can  believe  with  Harriet  Beecher  Stowe  that  the 
sugar  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  cup. 

Since  we  are  this  evening  attending  a  part  of  the  birthday  celebra- 
tion of  a  seventy-five-year-old,  it  may  not  be  inappropriate  to  observe 
that  educational  institutions  are  unique  in  that  they  are  a  species  of 
organism  that  does  not  grow  old  with  the  passing  of  the  years.  True, 
their  buildings  may  deteriorate  and  must  be  replaced  occasionally.  But 
even  the  floors,  worn  by  generations  of  seekers  after  knowledge,  take 
on  a  hallowed  atmosphere.  With  the  years  an  institution  acquires  a 
riper  experience  which  inspires  veneration.  That  this  is  true,  we  gather 
from  one  authority,  Harriet  M.  Townshend,  a  surviving  member 
of  the  class  of  less  than  a  score  which  entered  this  University  for  the 
first  time  on  September  17,  1873.  This  lady,  whose  life  has  been  lived 
in  the  shadow  of  her  alma  mater,  expressed  the  opinion  just  the  other 
day  that  the  University  has  become  better  in  proportion  to  its  growth. 
Hence,  we  are  meeting  this  year  in  a  spirit  of  rejoicing  for  the  good 
accomphshed  in  past  decades  but  more  especially  to  receive  counsel 
from  distinguished  men  and  women  to  help  us  chart  our  future  course. 
Tonight  we  are  having  the  benefit  of  such  counsel. 

The  first  speaker,  Charles  F.  Kettering,  one  of  the  leading  invent- 
ors and  research  engineers  in  the  history  of  this  nation,  is  an  Ohio 
man.  Born  and  reared  near  Loudonville,  he  is  a  graduate  of  this  Uni- 
versity in  the  class  of  1904.  To  repeat  the  catalogue  of  his  accomplish- 
ments and  of  the  honors  bestowed  upon  him  would  take  more  than 
the  time  allotted  for  the  program  and  because  of  his  renown  would  be 
superfluous.  He  has  been  honored  with  the  doctoral  degree  by  several 
leading  colleges  and  universities,  and  awarded  nine  medals,  including 
the  Washington  Award  by  The  Four  Founder  Engineering  Societies 

42 


OPENING  REMARKS  43 

(the  highest  award  in  the  profession  of  engineering),  not  to  mention 
decorations  bestowed  by  foreign  governments.  He  is  a  trustee  of  this 
University  and  of  Antioch  College.  His  technical  work  has  been  de- 
voted to  the  development  of  transportation  through  the  automobile 
and  the  diesel-electric  locomotive.  Notwithstanding  a  phenomenal  rec- 
ord of  inventions  and  practical  developments,  he  has  found  time  for 
effective  effort  in  fields  related  to  the  national  defense,  in  researches  on 
the  nature  of  chlorophyll,  and  on  other  equally  diverse  subjects. 

In  scanning  the  account  of  the  speaker  in  Who's  Who,  I  detected 
an  apparent  error  in  the  statement  that  he  had  "retired"  in  1947.  As  a 
statement  of  fact,  that  does  not  comport  with  his  present  activities. 
Finally,  and  this  is  the  kind  of  testimony  that  must  come  from  personal 
acquaintance,  he  is  unfailingly  gracious  and  has  an  especial  interest  in 
young  people.  Charles  F.  Kettering  will  address  us  on  the  subject, 
"Science  and  Technology — Servants  of  Man." 

Our  second  speaker  has  devoted  his  time  to  a  different  but  no  less 
important  sphere  of  effort.  CorneHus  Kruse  has  served  as  professor  of 
philosophy  at  Wesleyan  University  in  the  state  of  Connecticut,  and  as 
chairman  of  that  department  since  1923.  He  holds  degrees  from  Eden 
Theological  Seminary,  Yale,  and  Wesleyan.  His  services  to  the  whole 
world  have  been  distinguished.  A  member  of  the  American  Philo- 
sophical Association,  he  acted  as  secretary-general  of  that  Association 
for  a  number  of  years  and  also  as  vice-president.  He  has  acted  as  presi- 
dent and  officer  of  various  national  and  international  congresses  having 
to  do  with  socio-political  questions  and  until  recently  was  director  of 
the  American  Council  of  Learned  Societies.  He  has  been  called  upon 
by  the  State  Department  and  by  foreign  governments  to  undertake 
numerous  cultural  missions  to  South  American  nations.  He  served  as 
secretary  of  the  Foreign  Service  of  the  American  Friends  Service  Com- 
mittee during  the  period  of  its  relief  work.  In  view  of  the  title  of  his 
subject,  he  may  be  interested  to  know  that  this  University  was  one  of 
the  first  to  increase  the  engineering  curriculums  from  four  to  five  years 
in  order  to  introduce  certain  non-vocational  subjects.  Cornelius  Kruse 
will  address  us  on  "Humanity's  Need  for  the  Humanities." 


SCIENCE  AND  TECHNOLOGY— SERVANTS  OF  MAN 
By  Charles  F.  Kettering 

A  LMOST  all  the  important  technological  developments,  with  the 
/\  exception  of  the  railroad  and  the  telegraph,  with  which  we  are 
1  m.  surrounded  as  we  celebrate  this  seventy-fifth  anniversary  of 
The  Ohio  State  University  have  been  made  since  this  University  was 
started.  In  terms  of  geologic  time,  three-quarters  of  a  century  does 
not  seem  long,  but  in  terms  of  the  increased  ability  to  make  things,  the 
period  has  been  epochal.  As  a  representative  of  technology,  I  believe 
that  such  progress  has  been  made  in  science  and  its  application  to  ma- 
terials that  we  have  every  right  to  say  to  you  that  you  can  ask  us — the 
inventors,  engineers,  and  so  on — for  almost  anything  you  want.  If  you 
do  not  set  the  day  you  want  it,  we  can  make  it  for  you.  Never  before 
has  man  had  such  facilities  for  making  things  as  he  has  today. 

Technology  is  concerned  with  making  what  you  ask  for,  in  pro- 
ducing a  product  which  can  be  sold  across  the  counter  to  a  customer 
for  two  kinds  of  profit.  If  I  don't  sell  an  article  for  more  than  it  costs 
me  to  make,  the  sheriff  comes  to  see  me.  And  if  the  article  isn't  worth 
more  to  the  customer  than  he  pays  for  it,  he  will  not  buy  any  more. 
The  amount  by  which  the  sale  price  exceeds  the  cost  is  called  profit 
and  is  published  in  the  financial  statements.  But  the  most  important 
profit  in  the  world  is  one  we  never  mention,  one  that  is  not  included  in 
a  financial  statement  as  return  on  capital.  It  is  the  customer's  profit, 
the  amount  by  which  the  article's  value  to  the  customer  exceeds  the 
price  he  pays. 

To  find  out  the  amount  of  a  customer's  profit,  let  us  look  at  an 
example  or  two.  Maybe  you  have  a  radio  in  your  home.  If  you  were 
not  able  to  obtain  another,  how  much  more  would  you  pay  for  the  one 
you  have  than  you  did  pay?  The  increased  amount  is  what  you  think 
the  radio  is  worth.  The  difference  between  the  amount  of  its  worth  to 
you  and  the  price  you  actually  paid  is  profit.  How  much  more  would 
you  pay  for  a  telephone?  Because  you  would  be  willing  to  pay  more 
for  your  telephone  rather  than  to  lose  it,  you  make  a  profit  on  it.  This 
customer's  profit  is  the  motive  power  of  technology.  In  the  same  sense, 

44 


SaENCE   AND  TECHNOLOGY 


45 


the  power  that  makes  the  world  move  is  only  5  per  cent  "high"  motives 
and  the  remainder  utility  and  return  on  investment. 

Such  a  judgment  may  not  seem  sufficiently  idealistic,  but  we  in- 
ventors naturally  look  at  life  in  a  somewhat  different  way  from  aca- 
demic persons  because  we  have  to  loof{  at  things.  If  we  can  learn  to 
understand  a  thing  better  by  drawing  diagrams  on  the  blackboard,  we 
do  that.  But  ultimately,  the  only  way  we  can  transmit  whatever  we  do 
to  you  is  through  some  thing.  That  is  rather  like  pubhcation.  If  you 
have  an  idea  or  philosophy,  you  can  write  a  book  which  is  then  made 
into  a  product  and  distributed.  In  other  words,  you  publish  your  ideas 
in  books.  Inventors  pubHsh  their  ideas  in  things.  We  might  say  that 
we  don't  manufacture  automobiles,  we  just  publish  ideas  in  metal. 
And  people  ride  around  in  our  ideas. 

WE  IN  America  excel  in  this  process  of  duplication  which  was 
started  by  the  printers.  We  call  it  mass  production,  which  is 
really  nothing  but  the  ability  to  make  pieces  aUke.  The  art  of  printing 
is  the  abiUty  to  put  paper  in  a  machine  so  that  all  the  pieces  of  paper 
which  come  oflf  the  press  read  exactly  alike.  Later,  other  industries  be- 
gan to  duplicate  parts.  If  you  tear  down  a  piece  of  apparatus  into  its 
parts  and  make  more  parts  like  them,  you  can  put  the  parts  together 
again  and  have  more  of  the  apparatus.  The  parts  cannot  be  put  to- 
gether to  make  anything  else.  Over  in  Germany  before  the  last  war,  a 
man  stole  parts  from  the  factory  where  he  worked  which  he  supposed 
made  baby  carriages.  When  he  assembled  the  stolen  parts,  they  made  a 
machine  gun.  He  said  that  he  couldn't  put  the  thing  together  in  any 
way  so  that  it  would  come  out  a  baby  carriage.  Mass  production  is  just 
that  simple — the  duplication  of  parts. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  know  anything  to  reproduce  an  article,  once 
you  have  the  sample.  During  the  war,  for  instance,  we  took  a  contract 
to  make  machine  guns.  I  happened  to  be  in  one  of  our  plants  when 
the  proposed  gun  was  being  discussed.  Our  men  objected  that  they 
didn't  know  anything  about  guns.  I  asked  the  colonel  present  if  he 
had  shot  the  gun,  if  it  was  all  right.  He  assured  us  that  he  had  and 
that  if  we  could  make  more  guns  like  the  one  in  front  of  us  they  would 
be  fine.    He  insisted  that  it  wasn't  necessary  to  know  anything  else: 


46  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

"All  you  do  is  take  this  gun  apart,  make  more  pieces  like  the  ones  it 
contains,  put  them  back  together,  and  you'll  have  more  machine  guns 
that  will  shoot  just  exactly  as  this  one  does." 

The  art  of  making  two  pieces  aUke  or  a  billion  pieces  alike  has 
been  perfected  in  the  United  States  to  a  degree  reached  by  no  other 
country.  The  tooUng  necessary  to  make  pieces  aUke  has  reached  an 
amazing  degree  of  accuracy.  Take  a  simple  item  called  a  piston  pin. 
We  used  to  think  that  if  we  made  our  piston  pins  the  same  diameter 
to  within  a  half-thousandth  of  an  inch  we  were  doing  all  right. 
Today  they  have  to  be  within  a  tenth  of  a  thousandth.  And  we  are 
making  our  diesel  injectors  to  within  ten-  or  fifteen-millionths  of  an 
inch  of  the  same  dimension.  People  say  it  isn't  practical  to  do  that.  I 
do  not  know  whether  it  is  practical  or  not,  but  we  made  eighty-five 
thousand  diesel  injectors  a  month  all  of  which  were  within  those 
limits.  Of  course  that  job  was  done  by  machine  tools;  nobody  can 
make  one  of  those  parts  by  hand  to  those  limits  except  by  very  tedious 
work. 

Such  accuracy  is  made  possible  and  practical  by  the  improvement 
in  machine  tools.  We  used  to  think  that  if  the  tools  for  an  automobile 
cost  several  million  dollars,  the  figure  was  high.  Today  no  manufac- 
turer would  use  a  set  of  tools  at  that  cost  (taking  the  inflationary  factor 
into  account)  because  the  engine  would  not  be  as  good  as  if  he  spent 
six  or  seven  times  as  much  for  the  better  set  of  tools  now  available. 

In  spite  of  our  apparently  amazing  progress  compared  with  what 
remains  to  be  done,  nothing  has  been  done  yet — nothing  at  all.  We 
have  only  touched  the  surface  of  what  is  to  be  known.  We  have  a  few 
gadgets,  but  we  know  nothing  about  metallurgy,  nothing  about  plants, 
nothing  about  biology;  we  know  very  little  about  electricity. 

The  great  chemical  industry  is  just  opening  up  entirely  new  fields. 
The  production  of  synthetic  rubber  during  the  war,  for  example,  was 
one  of  the  greatest  new  developments  in  our  war  economy.  The  Jap- 
anese knew  that  we  would  be  no  good  unless  we  had  rubber  tires,  but 
they  were  perfectly  sure  we  did  not  know  enough  about  synthetic 
rubber  to  make  tires  out  of  it.  But  we  did.  The  tires  were  not  as  good 
as  they  should  have  been  to  start  with,  but  neither  is  your  golf  score 
as  good  when  you  start  as  it  is  after  you  practice.  As  we  made  tires, 


SCIENCE  AND  TECHNOLOGY  47 

we  improved  them.  Now  that  we  can  get  natural  rubber,  the  tire 
makers  prefer  natural  rubber  modified  by  the  synthetic  techniques 
they  have  learned. 

WITHOUT  question,  on  its  seventy-fifth  anniversary  this  university 
is  entering  into  a  new  era  in  which  technology  is  one  of  the  im- 
portant factors.  We  as  technologists  do  not  want  to  set  our  field  apart; 
we  want  to  be  servants  of  humanity.  We  want  to  make  it  easier  for 
you  to  do  the  things  you  want  to  do  in  the  way  you  want  to  do  them. 
If  you  want  to  listen  to  something  over  the  radio,  we  want  to  make  it 
easier  for  you  to  listen  to  it.  If  you  want  to  see  something  over  tele- 
vision, we  want  to  make  it  easier  for  you  to  do  so.  If  you  want  to  go 
to  see  your  aunt  or  uncle  on  Sunday  in  an  automobile,  we  would  like 
to  make  it  easier  for  you  to  do  that,  too.  Since  technology  is  related 
cold-bloodedly  to  mechanical  or  materialistic  things,  it  is  often  distin- 
guished from  cultural  pursuits.  We  inventors  and  engineers  do  not 
think  that  there  is  any  differentiation  at  all;  we  think  that  these  tech- 
nological and  scientific  advances  are  mediums  for  spreading  culture. 
Because  of  the  marvelous  distribution  system  that  we  have  through 
radio,  people  at  the  fishing  camps  today  hear  more  music  than  you 
could  hear  in  the  greatest  palace  of  music  in  the  world  a  few  years  ago. 
In  a  short  time,  you  will  actually  see  events  by  means  of  radar  and 
television.  These  are  only  mediums  through  which  you  are  able  to  do 
the  things  that  you  would  like  to  do,  and  do  more  of  them  in  less  time. 

What  you  choose  to  do,  however,  is  entirely  your  concern,  not 
ours.  The  man  who  wrote  the  very  clever  poem  about  the  people  who 
drive  from  Jackson  to  Lansing  and  from  Lansing  to  Jackson  every 
Sunday  wanted  to  know  why,  if  they  all  stayed  at  home,  there  would 
not  be  just  as  many  people  in  each  place.  There  would,  of  course,  but 
they  would  not  have  had  the  trip  from  Lansing  to  Jackson.  I  do  not 
care  why  you  drive  from  Lansing  to  Jackson  and  back;  if  you  want 
to  go  that  is  your  business.  And  if  your  cars  do  not  break  down  on 
the  road,  we  feel  happy. 

You  can  see  that  we  have  given  you  a  facility;  we  have  extended 
your  physical  entities  through  microscopes,  through  telescopes,  through 
this,  that,  and  the  other  thing  so  that  you  can  better  carry  out  the  things 


^8  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

that  you  would  like  to  do.  Whether  they  amount  to  anything  is  not  our 
responsibility  at  all.  The  pubhc  is  under  no  compulsion  to  use  any  of 
the  products  which  technology  has  supplied.  The  fear  that  technology 
is  ruining  the  world  is  unfounded.  If  people  did  not  buy  what  was 
made,  the  so-called  "ruin"  would  cease.  Industry  is  too  far  behind  on 
orders  to  feel  that  the  world  is  "ruined"  enough. 

FEARFUL  people  predict  that  we  are  going  to  run  out  of  gasoline  and 
oil,  that  we  are  going  to  starve  to  death.  Maybe  some  of  you  heard 
the  Town  Meeting  of  the  Air  when  the  American  Association  for  the 
Advancement  of  Science  met  in  Washington  and  predicted  that  be- 
cause of  overpopulation  we  are  going  to  starve  to  death.  If  we  starve 
to  death,  it  will  be  our  own  fault.  Stupidity  will  starve  us,  nothing  else. 
Those  speakers  did  not  tell  you  that  85  per  cent  of  the  population  of 
the  earth  have  never  had  enough  to  eat.  Only  15  per  cent  have  enough 
to  eat,  and  you  know  where  some  of  those  are  right  now. 

Our  astronomers  and  geologists  tell  us  that  probably  this  earth 
was  a  chunk  of?  the  sun.  As  it  cooled  down  and  people,  bugs,  bees, 
butterflies,  and  so  on  came  into  existence,  we  had  some  nitrogen  and 
some  oxygen  left  over.  There  was  a  lot  of  oxygen  left  over  in  the 
oceans  of  the  earth,  which  contain  320  million  cubic  miles  of  sea  water. 
Eight-ninths  of  that  is  oxygen.  If  you  really  want  to  find  out  how 
much  that  is,  figure  out  how  long  it  would  take  you  to  dip  the  ocean 
empty  with  a  gallon  bucket.  We  had  the  carbonates  and  all  the 
other  things  that  oxygen  went  into,  but  we  had  the  oxygen  left  over. 
Everything  had  been  oxidized  that  could  be.  When  the  vapor  cloud 
thinned  out  and  the  oceans  began  to  fill  up  with  water  and  the  sun 
began  to  shine  through,  something  in  the  energy  of  the  sun  became  a 
deoxidizer.  This  made  possible  the  Ufe  we  call  vegetation.  We  grow 
plants  for  food  and  then  the  oxidizers,  which  are  animals,  eat  them. 
So  we  have  two  things.  We  have  the  deoxidizing  sun  raising  the  crops, 
and  we  have  the  people  eating  them.  Now  there  is  one  thing  of  which 
you  can  be  perfectly  sure  if  you  study  the  population  distribution  map : 
there  are  no  people  where  there  are  no  plants  (outside  of  New  York 
City). 

So  the  factor  that  is  going  to  limit  population  is  the  amount  of 


SCIENCE   AND   TECHNOLOGY  49 

food  you  can  grow.  And  the  food  that  you  grow  depends  on  how 
much  of  the  sun's  energy  you  can  put  to  work.  We  do  not  know  any- 
thing about  this  problem  yet,  but  it  is  one  of  the  big  problems  that 
technology  has  to  solve.  How  can  you  work  the  sun  a  little  bit  harder 
and  get  more  work,  more  deoxidizing,  done-f* 

The  only  time  when  man  should  become  frightened  about  starving 
is  when  the  sun  stops  shining.  We  have  a  lot  of  needless  worry  in  this 
country  about  food  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  we  are  able  to  raise  more 
than  we  need — so  much  more  that  we  are  shipping  food  abroad. 

The  fruit-fly  experiment  illustrates  the  fixed  relation  between  food 
and  population.  Every  high-school  student  should  do  the  experiment. 
Put  the  fruit  flies  in  a  candy  jar.  Then  measure  out  a  fixed  amount  of 
banana  for  the  fruit-fly  colony.  After  a  week,  count  the  number  of 
fruit  flies.  Then  feed  them  another  week  and  count  them  again.  You 
will  be  amazed  to  find  out  how  fixed  that  population  stays.  If  you  put 
in  10  per  cent  more  banana,  the  count  goes  up  lo  per  cent;  if  you  take 
out  10  per  cent,  it  goes  down  lo  per  cent.  President  Bevis  said  he  hoped 
we  would  not  run  into  that  situation  in  the  human  family,  but  at  least 
85  per  cent  of  mankind  is  on  that  margin  now  since  the  population  is 
determined  by  food. 

Closely  tied  to  the  fear  of  starvation  is  the  fear  of  exhausting  the 
land  by  erosion,  by  washing  it  into  the  ocean — a  foolish  fear!  Since 
we  know  where  the  soil  is,  we  can  always  go  and  bring  it  back. 

Many  who  blame  technology  for  all  these  potential  evils  overlook 
the  fact  that  the  tractor  has  made  possible  greatly  increased  production. 
Not  only  has  it  made  plowing  easier,  but  it  has  cut  down  the  horse 
population  by  about  eleven  million.  Since  a  horse  uses  four  times  as 
much  food  as  a  human  being,  the  tractor  has  saved  food  for  forty-four 
million  more  people,  in  addition  to  making  it  possible  for  the  farmer 
to  raise  additional  crops.  The  problem  is  just  that  simple  to  an  engi- 
neer; to  the  biologist,  the  geologist,  and  the  politician,  it  may  be  much 
more  difficult. 

DDT  is  another  example  of  technology's  contribution.  With  DDT 
you  kill  off  a  lot  of  bugs.  Your  crops  are  heavier.  You  can  have  more 
oxidizers.  That  is  all  we  are,  just  oxidizers.  So  as  long  as  there  are 
food  materials  to  be  oxidized  there  will  be  organisms  to  do  it. 


50  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

We  are  entering  this  seventy-fifth  anniversary  of  The  Ohio  State 
University  with  entirely  new  concepts  of  what  our  problems  are.  The 
student  representative  on  this  afternoon's  program  made  me  shiver 
because  he  believed  that  we  are  now  in  a  dangerous  situation.  You  are 
not  in  a  dangerous  situation  today.  Never  before  in  the  history  of  the 
world  was  there  a  time  when  you  could  not  even  fall  down  without 
falhng  into  an  opportunity  of  some  kind.  There  never  was  a  time 
when  opportunities  were  scattered  around  in  as  great  variety  as  they 
are  now.  The  student  representative  had  been  listening  to  radio  com- 
mentators and  columnists  who  cannot  hold  their  jobs  unless  they  scare 
you.  There  is  really  nothing  to  be  worried  about. 

Do  not  let  anybody  tell  you,  as  they  tried  to  tell  Columbus,  that 
we  are  headed  for  a  place  where  we  shall  fall  oflf.  I  saw  a  painting  one 
time  of  Columbus  trying  to  sell  Queen  Isabella  on  his  idea — just  like 
an  inventor  trying  to  sell  a  patent.  The  old  fellows  were  all  sitting 
back,  listening  but  resenting,  naturally.  Now  if  Columbus  had  fallen 
off  the  edge  and  had  never  come  back,  that  would  have  been  according 
to  theory.  But  he  came  back,  and  his  return  upset  all  the  predictors 
and  the  theorists. 

Fear  of  failure  is  as  dangerous  to  achievement  as  the  other  fears 
we  have  discussed.  The  inventor  cannot  afford  to  be  afraid.  In  inven- 
tion a  man  may  fail  999  times,  but  if  he  succeeds  just  once,  he's  in. 
Failures  are  not  to  be  avoided.  In  fact  it's  the  work  of  the  day  to  fail 
because  the  more  you  fail,  the  more  you  know,  if  you  have  learned  to 
fail  intelligently.  Failures  are  the  stepping  stones  by  which  the  in- 
ventor eventually  enters  the  cathedral  of  success. 

There  is  some  question  as  to  whether  we  can  train  inventors.  I 
think  it  was  the  Brookings  Institution  that  made  a  study  which  showed 
that  the  more  education  a  man  has,  the  less  likely  he  is  to  be  an  in- 
ventor. I  believe  the  reason  is  very  simple.  From  the  time  a  child  starts 
kindergarten  until  he  graduates  from  college,  he  has  to  take  examina- 
tions about  every  two  or  three  weeks  or  months.  If  he  flunks,  he  is 
out — at  least  he  used  to  be.  The  student  becomes  so  afraid  of  failure 
that  when  he  gets  out  of  school  he  is  fearful  of  tackling  anything 
which  entails  even  the  possibiUty  of  failing. 

Whatever  our  point  of  view  toward  inventors  and  technology,  we 


SCIENCE   AND  TECHNOLOGY  5I 

must  realize  that  education,  like  applied  science,  is  only  emerging  from 
its  infancy.  Let  us  look  on  this  seventy-five-year-old  institution  as 
having  just  graduated  from  its  pre-kindergarten  concepts.  In  spite  of 
its  youth,  however,  it  is  a  well-balanced  university  because  no  one  thing 
is  more  important  than  any  other.  As  I  tell  the  people  in  medicine, 
the  child  who  brings  the  flower  to  the  sick  patient  is  as  important  as 
anyone  else  in  the  organization.  No  one  division  is  more  important 
than  another  when  all  serve  the  common  purpose. 

I  WANT  to  congratulate  The  Ohio  State  University  upon  its  accom- 
plishments of  the  past  seventy-five  years.  The  members  of  the  Board 
of  Trustees  are  making  a  long-range  study  of  what  this  University  is 
going  to  be  like  in  twenty-five,  thirty,  forty,  or  fifty  years.  We  do  not 
think  that  it  will  be  much  different;  the  changes  will  depend  upon  the 
times.  As  our  good  friend  Lew  Morrill  says,  a  good  university  is  one 
that  meets  the  requirements  of  the  time  and  the  community. 

Never  was  there  such  opportunity  for  young  people  as  there  is 
now.  If  we  will  recognize  that  fact  we  shall  get  rid  of  our  fear  complex. 
Let  us  raise  our  eyes  and  take  a  look  and  see  what  we  can  do.  Let  us 
not  say,  "I  could  do  that  if.  .  .  .  "  Let  us  drop  the  "if"  because  lots  of 
times,  if  you  don't  look  at  the  "if"  too  much,  it  automatically  disappears. 

You  have  heard  the  story  about  the  man  with  delirium  tremens 
who  awoke  in  the  morning  to  see  a  horrible  creature  sitting  on  his  bed. 
It  was  a  mixture  of  animal  and  bird  and  all  that  kind  of  thing.  Finally 
he  said  to  it,  "Now  look  here,  let's  talk  this  thing  over.  If  you  get  too 
rough  on  me,  I'm  going  to  take  a  couple  of  aspirins  and  sober  up — 
then  where'll  you  be?" 

Now  I  would  like  to  raise  our  sights  a  little  bit  to  see  what  we  can 
do,  what  the  possibilities  are.  When  we  stop  looking  at  these  ifs  and 
and's  so  much,  the  chances  are  that  when  we  drop  our  eyes  they  will 
be  gone.  This  is  the  age  of  opportunities  unlimited. 


HUMANITY'S  NEED  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 

By  Cornelius  Kruse 

FIRST  of  all  I  wish  to  express  my  pleasure  and  delight  at  the  honor 
of  being  asked  to  participate  in  this  celebration  of  seventy-five 
years  of  signal  educational  achievement  on  the  part  of  your  great 
state  university.  I  have  also  the  honor  to  have  been  instructed  only  a 
week  ago  to  convey  to  you  the  greetings  and  felicitations  of  the  Ameri- 
can Council  of  Learned  Societies  upon  this  important  and  memorable 
occasion.  You  may  not  realize  that  the  American  Council  of  Learned 
Societies  in  its  entirety  gathers  up  the  twenty-three  national  organiza- 
tions which  represent  the  humanistic  and  liberal-arts  interests  of  this 
country :  organizations  Hke  the  American  Philosophical  Association,  the 
American  Historical  Association,  the  Political  Science  Association,  and 
many  others.  It  gives  me  peculiar  pleasure  to  be  able  to  convey  to  you 
this  evening  their  felicitations. 

The  Council  has  realized  increasingly  in  recent  years  that  the 
humanities,  if  they  are  to  have  a  significant  impact  upon  American 
life  and  thought,  must  function  in  our  education  and  especially  through 
our  institutions  of  higher  learning.  The  American  Council  of  Learned 
Societies,  whose  more  appropriate  name  might  be  American  Council 
on  the  Humanities,  hopes  in  the  future  to  establish  even  closer  working 
co-operation  with  American  institutions  of  higher  learning  than  it  has 
enjoyed  in  the  past.  There  is  in  all  branches  of  scholarship  at  the 
present  time,  I  am  glad  to  say,  a  very  significant  movement  toward 
unity.  Practically  all  of  the  national  learned  societies  in  this  country, 
whether  in  the  field  of  the  natural  sciences,  of  education,  of  the  social 
sciences,  or  of  the  humanities  are  represented  in  Washington  by  four 
great  councils:  the  National  Research  Council,  the  American  Council 
on  Education,  the  Social  Science  Research  Council,  and  the  American 
Council  of  Learned  Societies.  The  executive  directors  and  chairmen 
of  these  councils  constitute  the  Conference  Board  of  the  Associated 
Research  Councils  which,  beginning  simply  as  an  agency  of  consulta- 
tion, is  increasingly  proving  itself  indispensable  for  the  planning  and 
execution  of  joint  projects  growing  out  of  the  common  needs  and 

52 


THE   HUMANITIES  53 

interests  of  the  four  councils.  It  is  among  scientists  that  one  finds 
today  some  of  the  most  persuasive  statements  regarding  the  present 
need  for  complementing  the  work  of  science  and  technology  with 
greater  stress  on  the  contribution  which  the  humanities  can  give  to  our 
present  civilization. 

As  you  no  doubt  realize,  before  and  during  the  war  there  was  much 
discussion  of  the  meaning  or  place  of  the  humanities  in  a  free  society 
and  in  our  modern  world.  Notable  regional  and  national  conferences 
on  the  humanities  have  been  held  on  the  west  and  east  coasts,  and  in 
the  Rocky  Mountain  states.  So  great  is  the  wealth  of  recent  literature 
on  the  subject  that  it  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  the  discussion  literature 
on  the  humanities.  A  careful  reading  of  these  modern  expressions  of 
interest  in  the  humanities  and  statements  of  what  their  role  should  be 
in  modern  times  indicates  a  great  shift  in  emphasis  and  temper  from 
that  encountered  in  earlier  discussion.  Briefly  put,  the  contrast  in 
temper  may  perhaps  be  stated  in  this  fashion.  The  earlier  discussions 
addressed  themselves  to  the  problem  of  how  can  humanity  save  the 
humanities;  while  today,  in  contrast,  the  question  is  usually  asked  in 
reverse:  What  can  the  humanities  do  to  save  humanity?  In  a  less 
disturbed  age  the  humanities  seemed  in  peril,  and  their  friends  came 
gallantly  to  their  rescue.  Today,  humanity  itself  is  in  peril  and  is  look- 
ing wistfully  to  see  if  by  any  chance  help  may  come  from  the 
humanities. 

WE  ARE  all  familiar,  of  course,  with  the  events  that  have  induced 
this  great  change  of  emphasis.  You  do  not  need  to  be  told  that 
we  are  Uving  in  a  time  when  everybody  who  is  at  all  thoughtful  is 
possessed  of  a  great  sense  of  anxiety  and  urgency.  It  is  those  who  are 
closest  to  a  scientific  knowledge  of  the  overwhelming  sources  of  phys- 
ical power  mankind  possesses  at  the  present  time,  who  express  the 
greatest  alarm.  This  apprehension  is  perhaps  best  evidenced  by  the  fact 
that  a  group  of  atomic  scientists  are  publishing  a  journal  for  the  edu- 
cation not  of  themselves  but  of  the  non-expert  in  what  really  is  at  stake 
for  humanity  in  our  present  age.  Certainly  no  man  has  been  closer 
to  the  great  recent  accumulation  of  power  through  the  sciences  than 
President  James  B.  Conant  of  Harvard  University.  In  his  recent  Terry 


54  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

lectures,  "On  Understanding  Science,"  he  refers  to  the  necessity  of 
intelligent  citizens  placing  the  international  control  of  atomic  energy 
at  the  top  of  any  list  of  concerns,  and  he  reminds  us  that  if  the  United 
Nations  Atomic  Energy  Commission  should  fail  to  reach  agreement 
on  the  international  control  of  atomic  energy,  "the  prospects  are  grim, 
indeed."^ 

Along  with  this  sense  of  urgency  occasioned  by  mankind's  sudden 
accession  of  terrifying  power  without  adequate  control  of  its  use, 
there  has  come  also,  fortunately,  a  change  in  our  attitude  toward  an 
understanding  of  the  meaning  of  the  humanities,  a  change  without 
which  the  reversal  of  attitude  referred  to  above  could  hardly  have 
taken  place. 

When  one  examines  the  recent  writings  on  the  subject  of  the 
humanities,  one  discovers  that  almost  every  author  is  perplexed  and 
baffled  by  the  difficulties  encountered  in  attempting  to  define  the 
essence  or  the  extent  of  the  humanities.  Now,  definitions  of  terms  that 
refer  to  objects  of  supposed  common  knowledge  are  notoriously  very 
difficult.  One  is  reminded  of  St.  Augustine's  famous  statement  with 
respect  to  the  nature  of  time — something  that  is  apparently  very  simple, 
a  statement  of  almost  unparalleled  candor:  "What,  then,  is  time?  If 
no  one  asks  me,  I  know:  if  I  wish  to  explain  it  to  one  that  asketh,  I 
do  not  know.""  If  inspired  by  St.  Augustine's  honesty  to  be  equally 
honest,  we  should  have  to  confess  that  we  encounter  similar  difficulties 
when  attempting  to  give  adequate  and  definite  explanations  of  such 
much  used  terms  as  science,  philosophy,  poetry,  or  art.  Yet,  however 
difficult,  if  we  wish  to  discover  what  help,  if  any,  can  come  to  humanity 
from  the  humanities,  we  need  to  understand  at  least  roughly  what  we 
mean  by  the  humanities,  even  though  precise  definition  may  not  be 
possible. 

One  of  the  simplest  ways  of  letting  people  know  what  we  are 
talking  about  is  to  point  to  something  that  is  shared  in  experience.  A 
definition  based  upon  pointing  at  a  class  of  objects  intended  is  usually 
called  a  definition  by  enumeration.  Within  Hmits,  such  a  definition  is 
feasible  and  valuable  even  for  an  understanding  of  the  humanities. 

^  Conant,   James   B.     On    Understanding   Science:   An   Historical   Approach.    New 
Haven,  Connecticut:  Yale  University  Press,  1947.    p.  xi. 
^The  Confessions  of  St.  Augustine.   Book  XI,  Sec.  17. 


Charles  F.  Kettering,  Speaking 
Seated:   Cornelius  Kruse  and  Charles  E.  MacQuigg 


Gordon  Keith  Chalmers,  Mildred  Horton, 

AND  ReINHOLD  NiEBUHR 


Karl  Taylor  Compton 


THE  HUMANITIES  55 

Most  people  would  be  agreed  that  the  humanities  are  represented  by 
the  classical  languages  and  literature,  by  Hterature  in  general,  by  the 
modern  languages  necessary  to  understand  foreign  literature  more 
intimately,  by  history,  philosophy,  the  fine  arts,  and  religion.  Whether 
the  social  sciences  are  also  humanities  is  sometimes  a  matter  of  debate; 
but  the  fact  that  practically  all  the  national  societies  in  the  field  of  the 
social  sciences  hold  a  dual  membership  in  the  American  Council  of 
Learned  Societies  and  the  Social  Science  Research  Council,  and  the 
further  fact  that  both  councils  are  each  year  working  in  closer  and 
closer  co-operation  with  each  other,  would  seem  to  indicate  an  increas- 
ing awareness  that  the  humanities  and  the  social  sciences  are  closely 
related  in  both  nature  and  function.  If  the  social  sciences  are  included, 
it  would  be  easy  to  go  a  step  further  and  include  the  natural  sciences. 
This  procedure  would  have  the  virtue  of  tolerance  and  wide-hearted- 
ness,  but  would  seem  for  practical  purposes  to  mean  that  the  definition 
by  enumeration  had  overextended  itself  to  include  all  branches  of 
learning. 

Perhaps  it  would  be  wise  to  attempt  a  new  approach  in  order  to 
see  whether  one  might  not  be  fortunate  enough  to  find  a  definition 
that  would  uncover  the  essential  nature  of  the  humanities.  This  under- 
taking, however,  at  once  comes  upon  the  difficulty  that  the  term  has 
had  a  history  in  the  course  of  which  it  has  undergone  many  changes 
in  meaning,  beginning  with  its  reference  to  the  so-called  litterae 
humaniores,  the  humaner  or  politer  letters  in  the  period  of  the  Italian 
Renaissance,  when  ancient  history,  philosophy,  and  literature  were 
contrasted  with  the  litterae  sacrae  or  divinae,  or  the  divine  letters  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Since  the  humanities  have  picked  up  and  dropped 
many  meanings  in  the  course  of  their  history,  it  might  seem  somewhat 
arbitrary  to  select  among  them  a  favorite  meaning  which  in  the  end 
might  simply  betray  a  personal  preference.  But  whatever  the  meaning 
of  the  term  may  have  been  throughout  its  history,  an  analysis  would 
reveal,  I  am  confident,  that  the  humanities  have  always  been  taken  to 
refer  to  something  that  is  or  should  be  a  very  intimate  concern  of  man. 
At  its  best,  of  course,  the  humanists,  among  them  Montaigne,  adopted 
the  well-known  humanistic  creed  of  the  distinguished  Roman  play- 
wright of  the  second  century  b.c,  Terence:      Homo  sum;  humani 


56  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

nihil  a  me  alienum  puto.  It  would  seem  fair  to  say  that  the  humani- 
ties alvi^ays  wished  to  place  man  and  his  spirit  in  the  forefront  of 
interest.  At  their  best  and  in  their  fullest  extent  they  have  referred 
and  do  refer  to  those  human  enterprises  which  lie  closest  to  the  hearts 
of  men  when  they  feel  themselves  to  be  most  truly  men.  Unquestion- 
ably the  term  humanities  contains  within  itself  judgments  of  worth  or 
value,  as  is,  of  course,  corroborated  by  the  clear  value  content  in  the 
related  term  humane.  If  pointing  is  again  resorted  to,  one  may  say 
what  is  pointed  to  is  man  at  his  best,  or  at  his  noblest,  when  most 
aware  of  what  it  means  to  be  a  man.  If  all  of  the  above  remarks  are 
valid,  we  could  justifiably  say,  it  would  seem,  that  the  humanities  are 
the  expression  in  manifold  form — in  art,  in  history,  in  philosophy  and 
religion — of  man's  intrinsic  values.  Intrinsic  values  are  those  that  give 
dignity  and  meaning  to  man  and  his  life  as  contrasted  with  instru- 
mental values  Hke  food,  shelter,  and  raiment  which  minister  indeed 
to  man's  necessities  and  come  first  in  time  but  are  not  first  in  value. 

SUCH  a  definition  of  the  essence  of  the  humanities  as  here  proposed 
seems  to  me  to  have  the  virtue  of  making  it  possible  to  keep  firmly 
in  mind  a  central  core  of  meaningfulness  for  all  manifestations  of 
man's  intrinsic  values. 

The  question  might  again  arise:  What  of  science  in  this  connec- 
tion? Is  it  not  also  an  intrinsic  value?  Pure  science,  science  understood 
as  insight  into  the  true  nature  of  the  universe  and  of  man,  unquestion- 
ably is  an  intrinsic  value,  and  in  its  disinterestedness  and  purity  has 
often  commanded  the  admiration  of  men.  I  am  not  now  thinking  of 
scientific  knowledge  as  imparting  to  man  almost  magical  power  for 
good  or  evil  but  as  enabling  man  to  come  to  know  this  mysterious 
universe.  It  occurred  to  me  as  I  was  hearing  my  distinguished  pred- 
ecessor, Charles  F.  Kettering,  that  it  was  his  business  to  make  the 
mysterious  obvious  and  mine  to  make  the  obvious  mysterious.  I  am 
reminded  of  the  statement  made  by  the  celebrated  French  mathema- 
tician, Henri  Poincare,  at  the  end  of  a  long  and  brilliant  analysis  of  the 
values  of  science:  "Thought  is  nothing  but  a  flash  in  the  midst  of  a 
long  night,  but  it  is  this  flash  which  is  everything."^  I  regard  President 

'Poincare,  Henri.  La  Valeur  de  la  Science,  Paris:  E.  Flammarian,  1920.  p.  276. 
"La  pcnsee  n'est  q'un  eclair  au  milieu  d'une  longue  nuit.  Mais  c'est  cet  eclair  qui  est 
tout." 


THE   HUMANITIES  57 

Conant's  proposal  that  the  history  of  science  be  used  to  make  us  more 
generally  aware  of  the  nature  and  value  of  science  as  essentially  a 
proposal  to  include  science  in  the  humanistic  enterprises.  Science,  when 
studied  and  presented  humanistically,  then,  and  not  professionally, 
would  indeed  be  included  in  the  humanities  and  would  be  associated 
with  what  is  usually  accepted  as  the  central  core  of  the  humanities, 
namely,  language  and  literature,  ancient  and  contemporary,  native  and 
foreign;  the  fine  arts  in  all  their  varied  expressions;  philosophy;  his- 
tory; and  religion. 

If  this  much  is  granted  me,  it  might  be  said  that,  of  course,  every- 
one understanding  the  term  in  this  wide  sense  would  now  have  to  give 
immediate  adherence  to  the  proposal  that  there  is  nothing,  literally 
nothing,  that  humanity,  and  particularly  humanity  the  world  over  in 
our  present  anxious  days,  needs  quite  so  much  as  the  cultivation  of  that 
which  is  intrinsically  most  valuable  in  human  life.  And  if  it  is  granted 
that  the  humanities  embody  man's  most  cherished  values,  it  follows 
by  severe  logical  entailment,  that  the  humanities  by  right  demand  first 
attention.  Such  an  acquiescence  in  the  proposal,  if  given,  might  give 
a  humanist  a  glow  of  triumph,  but  the  victory  might  prove  hollow  if 
the  need  of  humanity  at  the  present  time  for  the  humanities  were  not 
set  forth  in  greater  definiteness.  This  I  will  now  attempt  to  do. 

IN  THE  first  place,  it  is  hardly  necessary  for  me  to  state,  after  the  pre- 
vious discussion,  that  I  never  refer  to  the  humanities  in  the  narrow 
sense  merely  of  reviving  the  lost  and  often  lamented  art  of  proficiency 
in  Greek  and  Latin.  Not  that  great  advantage  would  not  accrue  to 
students  if  more  had  a  genuine  command  of  the  ancient  languages  and 
read  the  ancient  classics  in  their  original  expression  with  pleasure  and 
profit.  Every  true  lover  of  the  classics,  however,  will  no  doubt  share 
Milton's  feelings  when  he — himself  a  great  lover  of  ancient  literature — 
became  indignant  over  the  way  in  which  Greek  and  Latin  were  taught 
in  his  day  in  England,  and  scathingly  spoke  out  against  the  practice 
whereby,  as  he  said,  "we  hale  and  drag  our  choicest  and  hopefullest 
wits  to  that  asinine  feast  of  sowthistles  and  brambles  which  is  com- 
monly set  before  them,  as  all  the  food  and  entertainment  of  their  ten- 
derest  and  most  docible  age."* 

*  "Of  Education."  The  Work.s  of  John  Milton  in  Verse  and  Prose.  London:  William 
Pickering,  1851.   Vol.  IV,  pp.  383-84. 


58  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

As  a  lover  of  languages  myself  as  keys  to  understanding,  I  can  only 
parenthetically  express  sadness  at  the  realization  of  the  great  amount 
of  eflfort  that  has  gone  into  the  teaching  and  learning  of  ancient  as  well 
as  modern  languages  without  the  student's  often  having  tasted  even 
once  the  joy  of  entering  into  an  understanding  of  alternative  ways  of 
conceiving  life.  Fortunately,  more  is  being  done  these  days  to  facilitate 
the  more  successful  acquisition  of  ancient  and  modern  languages.  The 
narrowness  of  the  conception  of  the  humanities  that  once  prevailed  as 
restricted  to  the  learning  of  Greek  and  Latin  dare  not,  however, 
obscure  the  important  insight  contained  in  this  practice,  namely,  that 
knowledge  of  the  past  is  always  important,  and  especially  the  knowl- 
edge of  man's  cultural  past. 

It  certainly  is  true  that  ignorance  of  the  past  involves  a  great 
impoverishment  of  man's  realization  of  what  life  can  be,  and  is  a  tragic 
hindrance  to  achievement  of  that  knowledge  of  self  which  wise  men 
have  always  extolled  as  necessary  for  significant  living.  To  live  as  if 
Plato  and  Aristotle  had  never  lived  before,  or  as  if  Virgil  and  Lucretius 
had  never  written  epic  and  philosophical  poetry;  to  accept  present-day 
Christianity  without  any  knowledge  of  its  primitive  manifestations 
and  importance  to  mankind  throughout  the  ages;  to  live  as  if  a  Phidias 
had  not  lived  before,  or  the  builders  of  the  great  cathedrals  in  France 
and  England;  to  listen  to  modern  music  without  a  realization  of  the 
beauty  of  Gregorian  chants  and  of  the  church  music  of  Palestrina  or 
of  Bach;  to  live  without  an  intimate  appreciation  of  the  great  religious 
and  secular  painting  of  the  past — is  certainly  to  live  a  life  that  is  im- 
measurably less  than  it  might  be. 

When  I  had  the  great  good  fortune  recently  of  visiting  the  justly 
celebrated  Huntington  Library  in  San  Marino,  California,  and  re- 
quested and  received  the  privilege  of  inspecting  some  of  their  great 
treasures  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  I  felt  that  the 
separating  span  of  three  hundred  years  and  more  had  vanished  as  if 
by  magic,  and  1  had  become  a  contemporary  of  Hobbes  and  Bacon. 
Remembered  phrases  took  on  fresh  meaning  when  seen  in  the  ancient 
print  which  greeted  their  first  readers.  In  leafing  through  Bacon's 
Essays,  first  published  in  1597,  I  came  with  fresh  interest  upon  his 
well-known  analysis  of  the  uses  of  learning:  "Studies  serve  for  delight. 


THE   HUMANITIES  59 

for  ornament,  and  for  ability."  We  think  of  Bacon's  day  at  the  time 
when  he  made  this  analysis,  as  days  of  Elizabethan  magnificence — yes, 
but  also  of  insecurity  and  turbulence.  What  with  plots  and  counter- 
plots, attempted  rebellions,  and  consequent  executions  of  their  leaders, 
one  hardly  expected  to  find  learning  extolled  either  as  a  pastime  or  as 
an  ornament. 

Now,  it  is  indeed  true  that  studies  of  all  kinds,  humanistic  and 
scientific,  may  serve  for  pastime  and  for  ornament;  but  serious  students 
in  our  day  are  not  in  the  mood  to  indulge  such  uses  of  studies.  Cer- 
tainly the  least  value  of  the  humanities  in  our  present  day  is  their  value 
as  ornaments.  In  fact  this  value,  in  my  judgment,  has  hindered  the 
humanities  from  playing  the  part  reserved  for  them  in  human  history. 
If  "pastime"  means  delight,  the  judgment  has  its  merit.  Delight  is 
usually  the  accompaniment  of  successful  achievement,  and  living  in 
companionship  with  the  best  that  has  been  thought  and  written  and 
presented  in  the  manifold  expressions  of  art,  should  by  right  be  treas- 
ured. But  in  an  age  of  urgency  attention  should  be  more  properly 
focused  upon  what  the  humanities  can  do  for  humanity. 

ONE  thing  that  is  needed  sorely  at  the  present  time,  it  seems  to  me, 
is  serenity  and  stability.  A  knowledge  of  the  past  may  contribute 
to  the  realization  that  civilization  has  frequently  been  confronted  with 
great  crises  and  that  it  has  been  possible  for  man,  or  at  least  for  some 
men,  to  meet  these  great  crises  with  courage,  imaginativeness,  wisdom, 
and  dignity.  A  person  who  feels  that  he  is  a  contemporary  of  the  great 
men  of  earlier  days  is  not  so  easily  rushed  off  his  feet  by  every  wind  of 
doctrine  which  may  arise  from  day  to  day.  It  is  surprising  how  fre- 
quently a  certain  vogue  will  seize  the  contemporary  world  as  if  nothing 
similar  had  ever  appeared  before.  When,  for  example,  I  hear  people 
speak  about  semantics  in  hushed  tones  as  if  it  were  a  completely  new 
discovery,  I  wonder  to  what  profit  they  have  read  the  so-called  lesser 
dialogues  of  Plato  with  their  careful  examination  of  the  meaning  of 
current  terms  like  piety,  courage,  temperance,  and  friendship.  Many 
of  our  modern  fears  are  well  founded,  but  there  are  also  fears  that 
come  from  living  constantly  with  headlines  of  newspapers  or  of  radio 
broadcasts  with  their  cultivated  breathlessness.  Now,  newspapers  and 


6o  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

broadcasts  are  important  and  instructive,  but,  to  have  understanding, 
more  than  a  day-by-day  account  of  events  is  necessary.  Yet  I  am  told 
by  persons  who  make  a  study  of  such  things  that  for  many  of  our 
contemporaries  the  newspaper  is  their  only  reading.  History  is  often 
sober,  and  sometimes  dull,  but  is  it  not  evident  that  without  its  history 
any  event  is  but  superficially  understood  ?  Is  it  not  evident,  for  example, 
that  anybody  who  has  any  knowledge  at  all  of  the  poUtical  and  cultural 
history  of  Russia,  cannot  possibly  adopt  toward  the  Russian  people  the 
attitude  taken  by  those  who  rely  solely  upon  press  or  radio  reports  of 
the  daily  behavior  of  Vishinsky  and  Molotov  for  their  knowledge  of 
the  Russian  people.^  It  is  certain  that  if  Germany  is  to  be  not  only 
economically  but  spiritually  rehabilitated,  she  will  be  greatly  helped, 
perhaps  helped  only,  by  a  remembrance  of  her  great  past  when  she 
listened  to  her  philosophers  like  Leibniz  and  Kant;  to  her  poets  like 
Goethe,  Schiller,  and  Heine;  and  to  her  great  music  masters  like 
Mozart,  Bach,  Beethoven,  and  Brahms.  For  Germany  certainly  there 
will  be  healing  in  an  appreciative  return  to  the  heritage  left  her  in  her 
days  of  cultural  greatness,  which,  it  will  be  remembered,  coincided 
with  a  low  degree  of  political  or  imperial  power.  It  is  well  for  us  in 
our  day  to  repossess  the  heritage  of  our  American  past  and  feel  a  sense 
of  solidarity  with  those  who  in  many  fields  laid  not  only  the  political 
but  also  the  spiritual  and  artistic  foundations  of  our  culture. 

It  is  important  that  man  be  related  to  the  best  achievements  of  his 
fellows  in  the  past  of  his  own  tradition,  but  this  is  only  a  part  of 
humanity's  great  need  for  the  humanities  in  our  own  day.  We  must 
become  contemporaries  not  only  of  persons  who  have  advanced  the 
meaning  of  life  and  of  human  dignity  in  the  past  in  the  western  world, 
but  also  in  the  world  at  large.  Time  was  when  any  teacher  of  philos- 
ophy thought  he  was  engaged  in  the  most  sweeping  survey  of  any 
course  in  college.  We  customarily  begin  with  pre-Socratic  Greek  phi- 
losophers in  the  sixth  century  b.c.  and  study  the  development  of 
philosophy  from  that  time  until  the  present.  Indeed  a  great  span  of 
years.  We  have,  however,  almost  completely  omitted  Arabic,  Indian, 
and  Chinese  philosophy.  We  have  simply  studied  the  philosophy  of 
the  European  peninsula  which  might  today  be  called  the  "sore  thumb" 
of  the  great  Asiatic  mainland.    I  suspect  that  in  other  fields  of  the 


THE   HUMANITIES  6l 

humanities  something  similar  has  happened  until  recently.  Our  pene- 
tration in  depth  in  time  must  be  made  to  include  also  the  special 
extension  of  a  knowledge  of  the  best  that  has  been  thought  and  done 
in  the  cultures  of  peoples  who,  in  comparison  with  the  western  world, 
constitute  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  two  billions  or  two  billions 
and  a  half  who  are  now  our  contemporaries  the  world  round.  Political 
isolationism  has  been  overcome,  we  sincerely  hope,  and  science  by  its 
great  magic  has  made  of  this  world  externally  one  world.  But  inwardly 
it  is  anything  but  one  world.  Just  at  the  time  when  science  is  knitting 
the  races  of  the  world  together  through  an  increasingly  more  amazing 
network  of  communications  in  person  or  by  word,  whether  written  or 
spoken,  the  world  tends  to  fall  apart.  Why  is  that?  It  is  easier  to  bring 
people  together  in  a  neighborhood  than  to  make  them  be  neighborly 
and  understand  each  other.  Aristotle  in  his  celebrated  Ethics  makes 
the  statement  that  the  will  to  friendship  is  a  matter  of  a  moment,  but 
not  friendship.  Similarly  the  will  to  have  one  harmonious  world 
engaged  in  co-operatively  advancing  the  welfare  and  meaningfulness 
of  human  existence,  in  enjoying  each  other's  contribution  in  art,  in 
literature,  in  philosophy,  and  in  reUgion  may  indeed  be  a  matter  of  a 
moment  among  people  of  good  will,  but  not  really  the  actual  achieve- 
ment of  a  sense  of  solidarity  and  of  a  community  of  interests  and  aspi- 
rations. We  must  do  vastly  more  than  smile  at  each  other.  Good  will 
is  a  prime  necessity,  but  it  is  not  enough.  We  must  also  understand 
each  other.  It  is  impossible  to  begin  to  understand  the  peoples  of  the 
East,  near  or  far,  without  a  penetration  into  their  art,  their  literature, 
their  history,  their  religions.  This  I  know  is  a  great  order;  and  one  of 
the  great  problems  of  higher  education,  now  and  in  the  future,  is  how 
best  to  develop  our  knowledge  of  the  great  heritage  of  the  past  of 
cultures  other  than  our  own  and  to  transmit  this  knowledge  to  the 
young.  It  will  mean  vastly  more  effort  on  the  part  of  both  the  teacher 
and  the  taught.  As  I  tell  my  students,  the  time  of  the  playboy  is  gone. 
Whether  or  not  we  wish  to  lead,  leadership  has  been  thrust  upon  us, 
and  it  is  necessary  that  American  youth  rise  to  the  challenge  of  leader- 
ship. The  old  days  when  we  were  simply  interested  in  sports  and  a 
gentlemen's  degree  have  gone  completely.  It  will  mean  vastly  greater 
expense  in  introducing  into  research  and  into  teaching,  subjects  in  the 


62  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

fields  of  art,  literature,  philosophy,  and  religion,  which  hitherto  have 
been  conveniently  neglected.  Nothing  at  the  moment  is,  however, 
quite  so  important  as  to  develop  as  quickly  as  possible  a  sense  of  world 
community.  World  government,  which  everybody  admits  is  the  only 
final  answer  to  the  control  of  atomic  energy,  will  never  have  even  a 
chance  of  becoming  a  reality  without  the  sense  of  kinship  that  comes 
to  different  peoples  through  an  appreciative  understanding  of  their 
several  cultures. 

I  HAVE  stressed  the  necessity  of  venturing  sympathetically  and  appre- 
ciatively into  the  past  humanistic  expressions  of  other  people,  but 
we  must  not  forget  that  the  past  is  of  importance  only  as  it  contributes 
to  the  present.  A  knowledge  of  the  contemporary  literature  and  art  of 
countries  like  Russia  and  those  of  the  Near  and  the  Far  East  is  also 
an  absolute  necessity  in  our  own  day.  I  am  proud  to  have  been  and 
to  be  associated  with  the  American  Council  of  Learned  Societies,  a 
Council  which  has  with  rare  foresight  done  so  much  in  the  past  decades 
through  the  medium  of  fellowships,  conferences,  institutes,  and  trans- 
lation projects  to  help  open  up  to  a  greater  number  of  scholars  and 
students  the  whole  field  of  Chinese  learning  and  a  knowledge  of 
China's  cultural  past.  In  the  near  future  the  Council  hopes  to  make 
similarly  available  for  appreciative  understanding  the  culture  of  the 
Arabic  world  and  of  the  peoples  of  the  Near  East.  I  am  proud  also  of 
the  exceedingly  important  Russian  translation  and  book  procurement 
program  of  the  Council  which  is  carried  on  at  the  present  time  with 
generous  grants  from  the  Rockefeller  Foundation,  and  which  is  con- 
tributing so  significantly  to  make  standard  and  current  writings  of 
Russian  culture  available  to  our  scholars  and  students.  I  have  only 
admiration  for  the  numerous  universities  this  country  over  which  have 
begun  to  see  the  responsibilities  of  the  present  day  and  are  establishing 
Russian  institutes.  Far  East  institutes,  and  Near  East  departments. 

Fundamental  to  the  success  of  such  efforts  is  the  removal  of  the 
language  barrier.  Language,  I  recognize,  is  only  a  tool,  but  to  learn 
the  languages  of  other  countries  is  a  necessity  if  humanity's  need  for 
the  humanities  is  to  be  met.    Fortunately,  there  is  available  for  the 


THE   HUMANITIES  63 

greatly  accelerated  learning  of  a  language  the  intensive  method  worked 
out  with  great  skill  during  the  war  by  distinguished  linguists  under 
the  auspices  of  the  American  Council  of  Learned  Societies.  This 
method,  which  proved  so  successful  in  the  armed  forces,  demonstrated 
once  and  for  all  that  American  young  people  are  as  capable  as  those  of 
any  other  country  of  mastering  a  language  if  it  is  properly  taught  and 
— more  important  still — if  they  have  the  will  to  learn  and  see  the  reason 
for  its  necessity.  We  studied  languages  to  win  the  war.  Can  anything 
be  more  important  than  to  learn  languages  to  win  the  peace  and  to 
help  to  establish  a  new  sense  of  world  community? 

It  is  difficult  to  overestimate  the  need  for  a  complete  reversal  of  our 
previous  unconcern  about  learning  foreign  languages.  New  York  City, 
according  to  a  recent  report  in  the  New  Yorf{  Times,  has  recognized 
the  need  for  more  extensive  language  training  and  plans  to  begin  the 
teaching  of  modern  foreign  languages  in  the  seventh  grade.  Students 
who  are  particularly  apt  will  be  given  intensive  instruction  for  six 
years.  We  speak  much  of  iron  curtains  in  these  days,  and  unfortunately 
they  exist.  But  may  I  suggest  that  most  of  them  are  of  our  own  devis- 
ing: curtains  of  indolence,  curtains  of  disdain,  curtains  of  thinking 
that  we  ought  not  to  waste  our  time  on  things  foreign. 

The  dividing  curtain  of  language  is  the  first  barrier  that  needs  to 
be  removed  if  we  are  to  enter  into  more  than  casual  communication 
with  our  neighbors  the  world  round.  No  one  person  can  learn  all 
languages,  but  it  is  difficult  for  me  to  understand  how  those  of  us  who 
eagerly  look  forward  to  a  world  of  comradeship  and  friendship  can 
expect  that  if  any  language  is  ever  to  be  learned  it  must  always  be  our 
own,  the  English  language.  A  mastery  of  any  foreign  language  admits 
us  to  a  unique  sharing  of  the  great  expressions  of  the  human  spirit  in 
that  particular  culture.  Anyone  who  has  once  experienced  the  joy  of 
entering  directly  into  the  heritage  of  the  past  of  another  people  and 
into  direct  communication  with  their  present  concerns  and  achieve- 
ments needs  not  be  told  how  precious  is  the  reward  of  every  effort, 
however  great,  to  earn  the  right  of  such  a  privilege.  We  cannot,  I  have 
said,  learn  all  the  languages,  but  someone  must  learn  some  so  that  in 
the  aggregate  the  cultures  of  all  great  peoples,  whatever  their  language. 


64  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

will  become  accessible  to  those  who  reaUze  how  the  sense  of  world 
community  depends  literally  upon  sharing  values  held  dear  in  the 
diverse  cultures  of  mankind. 

We  hear  much  of  "realism"  in  our  day,  and  by  it,  one  gathers,  is 
meant  achieving  a  semblance  of  world  co-operation  by  some  display  of 
force,  whether  it  be  economic  or  military.  But  was  it  not  a  military 
chancellor,  greatly  experienced  in  the  uses  of  force  and  their  limits, 
who  said,  "You  can  do  everything  with  bayonets  but  sit  on  them".'' 
There  is  much  power  abroad  in  the  world  at  the  present  time  but  little 
understanding.  And  nothing  is  quite  so  necessary  in  our  day  as  an 
increase  of  understanding.  What  kind  of  understanding  is  it  that  we 
need?  Knowledge,  indeed,  but  not  simply  knowledge,  for  one  may 
know  much  about  a  people  and  yet  not  know  them,  as  a  foreigner  may 
live  a  long  while  in  this  country,  or  we  in  his,  without  feehng  at  home. 
It  is  only  through  an  intimate  and  sympathetic  appreciation  of  the 
history,  art,  literature,  philosophy,  and,  if  the  country  be  religious,  the 
religion  of  a  people  that  we  achieve  this  coveted  feeling  of  being  at 
home  with  them.  In  a  fascinating  exotic  dress  we  then  may  recognize 
our  own  cherished  values  or,  what  is  also  a  great  gain,  we  may  come 
to  appreciate  and  in  time  to  adopt  values  our  own  culture  had  over- 
looked. Some  such  mutual  appreciation  of  values  that  seem,  or  are, 
diverse  in  cultures  other  than  our  own  is  necessary  to  bring  about  the 
one  world  of  friendship  we  should  be  striving  for.  But  only  close 
contact  with  the  humanities  of  a  culture  can  induce  it. 

IN  CONCLUSION,  then,  may  we  not  say  that  a  new  day  has  dawned  for 
the  humanities,  a  day  of  ministry  to  man's  most  serious  needs.  We 
who  cherish  the  humanities,  however,  need  also  to  see  and  remember 
that  in  serving,  and  not  in  being  served,  the  humanities  achieve  their 
greatest  dignity.  No  longer  are  they  to  be  cultivated  as  orchids  or  to 
be  considered  as  the  mere  ornaments  of  life.  The  humanities,  we  now 
see,  must  bake  bread  for  humanity,  for  humanity  has  dire  need  of  it 
lest  it  perish. 

Institutions  like  this  great  state  university  can  do  much  to  make 
it  possible  for  the  values  inherent  in  the  humanities  to  become  avail- 


THE   HUMANITIES  65 

able  not  only  for  a  chosen  few  but  for  that  part  of  humanity  that  is 
within  its  keeping.  If  not  only  in  this  state,  but  in  this  country  gen- 
erally, and  not  only  in  this  country  but  in  all  countries,  the  great  value 
of  the  humanities  for  humanity,  and  humanity's  great  need  for  the 
humanities  are  duly  appreciated,  and  if  the  many  perplexing  and 
challenging  problems  involved  in  their  study  and  communication  are 
successfully  met,  it  may  still  be  possible  to  say,  even  at  this  late  date, 
in  the  words  of  a  great  Greek  poet,  how  amiable  is  man  when  he  is 
really  man. 


THE  SECOND  CONFERENCE 

Chairman: 

Jefferson  B.  Fordham,  Dean,  College  of  Law,  The  Ohio  State 
University 

Speakers: 

Robert  Lawrence  Stearns,  President,  the  University  of  Colorado 
W.  W.  Waymack,  United  States  Atomic  Energy  Commission 


OPENING  REMARKS 
By  Jeferson  B.  Fordham 

A  s  CHAIRMAN  of  this  Conference,  I  have  the  privilege  of  opening  the 
/_\  third  session  of  the  seventy-fifth  anniversary  program  of  The 
X  .^  Ohio  State  University.  It  is  quite  customary  for  lawyers  to 
deal  with  their  subject  matter  in  terms  of  substance  and  procedure. 
Other  people  do  the  same  in  their  discipHnes,  Sometimes  we  find  it  is 
not  too  easy  to  determine  where  substance  leaves  oil  and  procedure 
begins.  This  morning,  however,  the  question  presents  no  problem,  for 
I  am  quite  certain  that  my  province  is  procedure. 

I  do  wish  to  make  a  preliminary  remark.  As  one  who  has  come 
but  recently  to  share  in  the  work  of  this  great  university  and  who 
thus  can  claim  no  credit  even  in  a  modest  way  for  what  it  has  accom- 
plished in  the  past,  it  would  not  be  unbecoming  for  me  to  join  in 
paying  her  richly  merited  tribute.  I  am  happy,  however,  that  in  the 
inspiring  sessions  that  have  preceded  this  assembly  a  loftier  tone  has 
been  set.  While  just  recognition  has  been  accorded  the  University  for 
what  she  has  been  and  for  what  she  is,  the  greatest  stress  has  been  laid 
from  the  outset  upon  her  responsibilities  and  opportunities  both  for  the 
present  and  for  the  future. 

In  these  days  of  chronic  national  crisis,  and  unprecedentedly  rapid 
social  change,  the  responsibilities  of  our  centers  of  higher  learning  are 
increased  immeasurably.  Particularly  is  this  true  of  the  state  institu- 
tions which  have  such  close  ties  to  the  mass  of  the  people.  I  am 
confident  that  the  addresses  we  are  about  to  hear  will  aid  us  greatly 
in  achieving  the  perspective  and  declarative  purpose  demanded  by  the 
great  tasks  of  today  and  tomorrow. 

Our  first  speaker,  Robert  Lawrence  Stearns,  was  born  in  Halifax, 
Nova  Scotia,  to  parents  who  were  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Since 
the  family  moved  to  Colorado  when  he  was  but  two  months  old,  I 
think  it  not  unfair  to  our  good  Nova  Scotia  friends  to  say  that  he  is 
in  truth  a  native  son  of  the  state  whose  splendid  university  he  now 
heads.  It  was  at  the  University  of  Colorado  that  he  did  his  under- 
graduate work.   After  graduation,  he  enrolled  in  the  Columbia  Uni- 


OPENING   REMARKS  69 

versity  Law  School,  from  which  he  graduated  with  an  LL.B.  degree 
in  1916.  That  same  year  he  was  admitted  to  the  Colorado  bar  and 
entered  practice  in  its  capital  city  of  Denver.  Although  his  distin- 
guished career  in  the  field  of  higher  education  began  when  he  served 
as  an  assistant  in  history  in  his  undergraduate  days,  he  actually  cast 
his  lot  with  the  teaching  profession  when  in  1920  he  accepted  appoint- 
ment to  the  faculty  of  the  College  of  Law  of  the  University  of 
Denver.  He  attained  professorial  rank  in  1924.  Seven  years  later  he 
became  a  professor  of  law  at  the  University  of  Colorado.  In  1931—33 
he  served  as  acting  dean  of  the  law  school.  In  1935  he  assumed  the 
deanship.  He  continued  in  that  capacity  until  he  was  elevated  to  the 
presidency  of  that  university  in  1939.  As  a  lawyer  and  a  legal  educator, 
he  has  shared  prominently  in  the  work  of  the  organized  bar.  He  has 
been  president  of  the  Denver  and  the  Colorado  bar  associations.  Since 
1937,  he  has  been  a  member  of  the  Council  on  Legal  Education  of  the 
American  Bar  Association.  His  published  writings  include  a  com- 
pilation of  the  Colorado  Law  of  Wills  and  Estates,  and  numerous 
contributions  to  legal  periodicals.  He  is  a  member  of  the  Phi  Beta 
Kappa  and  of  its  legal  counterpart,  the  Order  of  the  Coif.  He  served 
his  country  in  two  world  wars.  In  World  War  I,  he  rose  to  the  rank 
of  captain  in  army  aviation.  In  the  recent  conflict,  he  rendered  dis- 
tinguished service  as  an  operations  analyst  with  the  Army  Air  Forces. 

In  1946,  he  was  awarded  the  Medal  of  Freedom.  Today  he  con- 
tinues as  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Visitors  of  the  United  States  Air 
Force  Air  University.  In  well-merited  recognition  of  his  notable  work 
and  his  influence  as  an  educator  in  the  realm  of  higher  learning, 
Columbia  University,  the  University  of  Denver,  and  the  University 
of  New  Mexico  have  conferred  honorary  degrees  upon  him.  President 
Stearns  is  to  discuss  the  highly  appropriate  subject,  "The  State  Univer- 
sity— A  Service  to  Democracy." 

The  second  speaker  on  this  very  significant  program,  William 
Wesley  Waymack,  is  a  native  of  Savanna,  Illinois,  His  college  days 
were  spent  at  Morningside  College  from  which  he  graduated  in  191 1. 
Three  years  later  he  became  associated  with  the  Des  Moines  Register 
and  Tribune  as  an  editorial  writer.  That  was  the  beginning  of  a 
journalistic  association  which  continued  until  the  recent  assumption 


70  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

of  his  present  weighty  pubhc  responsibihtics  led  him  to  sever  his 
private,  professional  ties.  He  became  managing  editor  of  his  paper  in 
1918  and  editor  of  the  editorial  section  in  1921.  In  1942  he  assumed 
the  important  responsibilities  of  editor.  In  the  realm  of  management 
he  became  a  director  of  the  Register  and  Tribune  Company  in  1931 
and  vice-president  in  1939.  His  stature  as  a  journaUst  is  fittingly  at- 
tested by  the  fact  that  in  1937  he  was  awarded  the  Pulitzer  Prize  for 
distinguished  editorial  writing. 

He  has  had  an  equally  notable  record  in  the  public  service.  He 
has  been  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Federal  Reserve 
Bank  of  Chicago.  His  contributions  to  the  cause  in  World  War  II 
have  included  service  to  the  State  Department  as  a  consultant  to  the 
War  Food  Administration  and  as  an  associate  public  member  of  the 
National  War  Labor  Board.  In  1941  he  made  a  study  of  the  Australian 
war  effort  at  the  behest  of  the  Australian  and  New  Zealand  govern- 
ments. Our  speaker  is  a  member  of  the  governing  boards  of  the  Car- 
negie Endowment  for  International  Peace,  the  American  Association 
for  the  United  Nations,  Freedom  House  Inc.,  the  Woodrow  Wilson 
Foundation,  and  the  National  Conference  of  Christians  and  Jews.  The 
National  Conference  awarded  its  distinguished  service  citation  to  him 
in  1942.  In  1946,  he  was  in  Greece  serving  as  a  member  of  the  AlHed 
Mission  to  observe  the  Greek  elections.  In  October  of  that  year,  he 
was  appointed  to  membership  on  the  newly  created  United  States 
Atomic  Energy  Commission  and  since  that  time  has  been  sharing 
with  his  colleagues  responsibilities  of  unprecedented  gravity  to  all 
mankind.  Upon  this  conspicuously  able  and  fruitful  citizen,  no  less 
than  four  institutions,  including  his  alma  mater,  have  conferred  honor- 
ary degrees.  It  is  our  rare  good  fortune  to  have  him  address  us  upon 
the  subject  "Education  for  Survival." 


THE  STATE  UNIVERSITY— 
A  SERVICE  TO  DEMOCRACY 

By  Robert  La\vrence  Stearns 

A  s  THE  tide  of  democracy  moved  westward  across  this  continent 
/  \  it  marked  our  institutions  of  higher  learning  with  characters 
X  Jk.  as  distinctly  American  as  the  Lincoln  Memorial.  From  the 
Atlantic  Seaboard  to  the  Northwest  Territory  to  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains, men  and  ideas  have  blazed  the  trails  and  built  the  outposts  of 
freedom.  If  you  would  seek  their  monument  look  about  you.  Since 
revolutionary  times  we  have  been  moving  to  the  measures  of  their 
great  thought — "the  people  are  the  government." 

This  occasion  commemorates  the  estabHshment  of  such  an  institu- 
tion. It  marks  another  step  in  the  sequence  of  public  concern  over 
what  had  previously  been  regarded  as  private  matters.  The  growing 
needs  of  the  country  required  federal  control  for  the  estabhshment  of 
a  monetary  system  and  a  postal  system.  Homestead  laws  encouraged  the 
migrations  of  people  and  their  settlement  upon  public  lands.  Commu- 
nication and  transportation  needs  resulted  in  governmental  assistance 
to  railroads  and  telegraph  lines.  As  new  roads  were  opened  up  to  the 
westward,  they  were  protected  by  federal  miHtary  forces. 

But  education  had  been  essentially  a  matter  of  private  or  local 
concern.  Originally  dependent  upon  private  benefactors  or  the  efforts 
of  the  church,  provision  for  education  came  with  this  westward  migra- 
tion of  democratic  ideas  to  be  a  matter  of  state  concern — first  for  the 
pubHc  schools  and  later  for  the  state  universities.  The  first  president 
of  the  University  of  Minnesota  declared  this  principle  in  his  inaugural 
address.  "Minnesota,"  he  said,  "cannot  postpone  her  university  until 
some  pubhc-spirited  millionaire  comes  down  with  the  needful  millions 
....  There  remains  but  one  resource.  The  State,  the  Commonwealth, 
the  sovereign  people  in  their  organized  political  capacity  must  found 
the  university.  .  .  .  The  University  ...  is  not  merely  from  the  people, 
but  for  the  people."^ 

^Folwell,  William  Watts.  University  Addresses.  Minneapolis,  Minnesota:  The  H. 
W.  Wilson  Company,  1909.    pp.  40,  41,  75. 

71 


72  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

That  each  successive  state  university  has  become  such  a  dynamic 
force  cannot  be  denied.  As  Clarence  Dykstra,  former  president  of  the 
University  of  Wisconsin  and  now  provost  of  the  University  of  CaU- 
fornia  at  Los  Angeles,  said  from  this  platform  eight  years  ago :  "It  was 
in  this  spirit  that  here  in  the  old  Northwest  the  pioneers  set  up  their 
universities  and  nowhere  in  the  world  have  universities  played  as  large 
a  part  in  the  life  and  growth  of  the  people."  It  is  this  quality  of 
responding  to  the  needs  of  the  people  as  those  needs  change  that  marks 
the  peculiar  genius  of  the  state  university. 

Of  necessity,  therefore,  the  responsibility  for  meeting  the  educa- 
tional needs  of  the  maturing  nation  fell  upon  the  state  universities.  The 
traditional  required  curriculum  was  expanded.  Professional  schools  of 
law,  medicine,  and  engineering  were  established;  later  their  number 
was  increased  to  include  business,  journalism,  pharmacy,  architecture, 
and  many  other  fields.  Vocational  training  and  college  work  were 
united  in  the  same  institution.  The  Morrill  Act  (concerning  which  we 
have  heard  so  much  in  the  last  day)  whereby  the  so-called  land-grant 
colleges  came  into  existence  following  the  Civil  War,  encouraged  and 
fostered  studies  in  agriculture  and  the  mechanic  arts. 

But  what  is  behind  this  theory  of  public  support  for  education.? 
We  have  seen  studies  almost  without  number  made  on  the  subject  of 
the  increased  earning  power  of  the  individual  with  the  college  degree. 
If  we  read  these  magazine  and  newspaper  articles  with  their  statistical 
approach  showing  the  annual  per  capita  earnings  of  the  college  grad- 
uate as  against  those  of  a  person  who  has  not  had  that  opportunity, 
we  are  led  to  believe  that  the  sole  purpose  of  a  college  education  is  to 
increase  the  economic  status  of  the  graduate.  Nothing  in  my  judgment 
could  be  farther  from  the  truth.  The  fundamental  purpose  of  state 
support  of  higher  education  is  to  provide  for  the  common  welfare.  If 
the  vast  sums  that  are  spent  annually  for  the  construction  and  main- 
tenance of  these  great  institutions  have  for  their  only  purpose  the 
advancement  of  the  economic  status  of  the  individual,  we  have  lost 
sight  of  the  basic  philosophy  of  their  creation.  State  universities  are 
created  and  supported  to  sustain  the  democracy,  to  raise  its  level  of 
political  Uteracy,  to  create  and  develop  the  informed  intelligence — in 
short,  to  provide  an  agency  whose  main  purpose  for  existence  is  a 


THE   STATE   UNIVERSITY  73 

service  to  the  democracy  v/hich  it  sustains.  No  nation  can  exist  half 
slave  and  half  free,  and  no  bondage  is  greater  than  slavery  to  ignorance, 
superstition,  and  incompetence. 

Out  of  the  public  need  was  this  great  institution  born.  It  and 
others  like  it  have  consistently  tried  to  measure  up  to  the  great  purposes 
and  obligations  that  brought  them  into  being.  The  changes  that  have 
come  about  in  the  intervening  years  are  but  the  logical  application  of 
the  idea  of  service  to  democracy.  These  changes  are  so  great  and  so 
significant,  however,  as  to  merit  consideration  of  them  and  their  effect 
upon  our  people. 

Let  us  therefore  consider  briefly  the  major  divisions  of  a  modern 
university,  take  stock  of  some  of  their  accomplishments,  and  then  con- 
trast the  state  university  today  with  what  it  was  seventy-five  years  ago. 

THE  College  of  Arts  and  Sciences  is,  and  always  has  been,  the  very 
core  and  center  of  any  university.  The  rest  of  the  institution  is 
but  its  lengthening  shadow.  It  is  here  that  the  intellectual  curiosity  is 
awakened  and  the  habits  of  inquiry  are  formed.  Our  American  uni- 
versities have  gone  through  the  processes  of  the  fixed  curriculum,  the 
free  elective  system,  the  group  elective  system,  and  are  now  emerging 
into  the  plan  of  general  education.  Whatever  the  device  employed,  its 
purpose  is  to  develop  an  intelligent  and  socially  sensitive  person,  able 
and  willing  to  discharge  his  responsibilities  as  a  citizen,  a  community 
member,  a  family  member,  and  a  friend.  Presumably  he  should  be 
equipped  with  interests  and  powers  to  give  meaning  and  satisfaction 
to  life. 

The  aim  of  this  college  is  best  summarized  by  the  statement  of 
Isocrates  written  about  350  B.C.  as  contained  in  the  Norlin  translation: 

Whom,  then,  do  I  call  educated  .  .  .?  First,  those  who  manage  well 
the  circumstances  which  they  encounter  day  by  day,  and  who  possess  a 
judgement  which  is  accurate  in  meeting  occasions  as  they  arise  and  rarely 
misses  the  expedient  course  of  action;  next,  those  who  are  decent  and  hon- 
ourable in  their  intercourse  with  all  with  whom  they  associate,  tolerating 
easily  and  good-naturedly  what  is  unpleasant  or  offensive  in  others  and 
being  themselves  as  agreeable  and  reasonable  to  their  associates  as  it  is 
possible  to  be;  furthermore,  those  who  hold  their  pleasures  always  under 


74  SEVENTY-FIFTH  ANNIVERSARY 

control  and  are  not  unduly  overcome  by  their  misfortunes,  bearing  up 
under  them  bravely  and  in  a  manner  worthy  of  our  common  nature; 
finally,  and  most  important  of  all,  those  who  are  not  spoiled  by  successes 
and  do  not  desert  their  true  selves  and  become  arrogant,  but  hold  their 
ground  steadfasdy  as  intelligent  men,  not  rejoicing  in  the  good  things 
which  have  come  to  them  through  chance  rather  than  in  those  which 
through  their  own  nature  and  intelligence  are  theirs  from  their  birth. 
Those  who  have  a  character  which  is  in  accord,  not  with  one  of  these 
things,  but  with  all  of  them — these,  I  contend,  are  wise  and  complete  men, 
possessed  of  all  the  virtues. - 

The  attainment  of  this  ideal  of  Isocrates  is  difficult  and  baffling. 
Of  necessity  human  instrumentalities  must  be  used.  Faculty  members 
are  sometimes  interested  in  the  narrow  fields  of  their  own  specialties 
and  like  other  humans  are  oftentimes  intolerant  and  contemptuous  of 
the  opinions  of  others.  The  tendency  is  always  toward  the  disintegra- 
tion of  learning  rather  than  toward  its  integration  into  a  meaningful 
whole.  The  one  movement  today  that  gives  hope  to  the  situation  is 
the  theory  and  the  development  of  a  general  education  whereby  the 
student  can  be  led  through  an  appreciation  of  the  past  into  the  present, 
and  will  gain  an  understanding — broad,  if  need  be — or  at  least  an 
awareness  of  man's  relation  to  his  environment  in  all  of  its  aspects — 
physical,  social,  economic,  governmental,  and  international. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  is  a  large  order.  It  is.  It  has  been  the  aim 
and  purpose  of  education  through  the  centuries.  The  story  of  its 
failures  is  told  in  wars,  conflicts,  depressions,  unemployment,  pestilence, 
and  famine.  The  story  of  its  successes  is  told  in  the  periods  of  peace; 
in  the  conquest  of  nature;  in  conservation  of  resources;  in  creative 
works  in  art,  architecture,  literature,  and  music. 

"Say  not  that  the  struggle  naught  availeth." 

THE  School  of  Law  as  a  part  of  the  state  university  structure  was 
established  as  a  result  of  a  great  social  need.  No  society  can  sur- 
vive without  a  stable  but  resilient  legal  system.  If  too  inflexible,  as  were 
the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  the  Persians,  the  laws  will  not  respond  to 
human  need  and  will  become  an  end  instead  of  a  means  to  human 
betterment.   If  too  flexible,  they  create  chaos  and  uncertainty,  denying 

'Isocrates.  With  an  English  Translation  by  George  Norhn.  Vol.  II,  pp.  391-93. 
The  Loeb  Classical  Library'.    London:  William  Heinemann,  Limited,  1929. 


THE  STATE   UNU^ERSITY  75 

the  very  quality  that  law  is  designed  to  provide.  "There  must  be," 
said  Roscoe  Pound, 

a  balance  of  what  is  and  of  what  ought  to  be.  No  one  can  study  the 
history  of  precepts  and  conceptions  and  doctrines  without  seeing  that  in 
law  what  is  is  constantly  reshaped  to  the  model  of  juristic  pictures  of  what 
ought  to  be.  Yet  we  cannot  ignore  what  is.  It  is  just  this  which  has  to  be 
reshaped.  Ideals  do  not  realize  themselves.  Men  make  them  real  by 
measuring  and  criticizing  precepts,  in  their  content  and  in  their  operation, 
by  .  .  .  taking  them  as  goals  of  creative  thinking.  A  body  of  legal  ideals 
not  put  into  such  use  is  wholly  sterile.  It  is  a  difficult  feat  to  reconcile  and 
bring  to  one  system  of  juristic  thought  stability  and  change,  authority  and 
reason,  is  and  ought  to  be,  rule  and  discretion,  legislation  and  administra- 
tion, statutes  and  doctrinal  and  judicial  tradition.  But  such  is  the  task  of  a 
science  of  law  in  a  period  of  growth  and  adaptation.  Because  we  have  to  do 
with  what  ought  to  be  we  are  not  to  ignore  what  is.  Yet  our  occupa- 
tion with  what  is  has  its  justification  in  enabling  us  to  establish  what 
ought  to  be.^ 

Our  modern  state  university  law  school  is  set  up  on  this  theory. 
Those  words  quoted  from  Mr.  Pound  were  spoken  at  the  dedication  of 
the  Law  Quadrangle  at  the  University  of  Michigan  in  1934.  They 
reflect  the  basic  philosophy  of  legal  education  today.  It  is  imperative 
that  our  law  schools  educate  their  students  in  the  subject  of  law  as  it  is. 
Without  that  knowledge  they  would  be  of  scant  use  to  their  clients. 
.But  these  men  and  women  are  not  concerned  to  be  only  practitioners 
of  law.  They  are  the  future  judges,  legislators,  and  jurists.  Without 
possessing  critical  faculties  and  using  them  to  evaluate  what  is,  they 
would  be  of  httle  benefit  to  society  in  remaking  the  law  through  the 
processes  of  judicial  and  legislative  evolution  into  what  ought  to  be. 

The  products  of  the  law  schools  of  our  state  universities  are  in 
every  court  and  every  legislative  body  in  the  land.  The  welfare,  not 
only  of  their  individual  clients,  but  of  society  as  a  whole  is  dependent 
upon  how  well  they  perform  their  tasks  of  judicial  development. 

The  enlightened  approach  of  the  law  school  of  this  university  to 
the  problems  of  today  is  very  evident.  Not  only  does  it  provide  for  the 
legal  education  of  the  lawyers  of  tomorrow,  but  it  is  developing  their 
critical  faculties  as  well.   Through  its  Law  Review  it  is  encouraging 

*  "Law  and  Laws  in  the  Twentieth  Century."  Dedicatory  Exercises  of  the  Law 
Quadrangle  .  .  .,  June  15,  1934.    The  University  of  Michigan  Law  School,  1935.    p.  41. 


76  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

creative  scholarship.  Through  its  course  in  the  legal  aspects  of  labor 
relations,  it  is  pioneering  in  a  field  of  vast  importance  to  our  internal 
development.  Legal  change  comes  slowly,  often  only  after  the  need  is 
acutely  felt.  It  must  be  the  product  of  thorough  and  scholarly  effort, 
articulating  attitudes  and  composing  differences.  Such  an  activity  calls 
for  statesmanship  of  a  high  order. 

Moreover,  as  this  nation  moves  toward  the  assumption  of  its  duties 
and  the  fulfillment  of  its  destiny  in  the  family  of  nations,  the  creation 
of  an  effective  body  of  international  law  is  imperative.  The  United 
Nations  is  but  an  association  of  political  entities.  It  has  no  legal  cohe- 
siveness.  The  next  step  in  its  development  is  and  must  be  a  legal 
foundation  deserving  the  respect  of  the  constituent  nations  and  de- 
manding compliance  with  its  principles,  with  power  to  enforce  them 
if  need  be.  Where  can  we  look  today  for  men  competent  to  design 
such  a  structure  if  not  to  the  members  of  the  legal  profession?  Let 
courage  rise  to  the  danger,  but  let  it  be  the  courage  and  resourcefulness 
of  the  Anglo-American  lawyer  familiar  with  the  legal  tools  of  a  work- 
able democracy. 

IN  NO  field  have  the  contributions  of  the  state  universities  been  more 
immediately  felt  than  in  medical  education.  Out  of  the  77  Class  A 
medical  schools  in  this  country,  29  are  affiliated  with  state-controlled 
universities.  Indeed,  today  the  cost  of  medical  education  has  grown  to 
such  a  figure  that  state  support  is  almost  a  necessity. 

The  amount  of  detailed  knowledge  necessary  to  the  effective  prac- 
tice of  medicine  today  has  created  the  age  of  specialists.  Of  necessity 
these  specialists  are  drawn  to  the  large  urban  areas.  The  age  of  the 
general  practitioner  is  waning;  and  many  communities  in  our  states 
have  inadequate  health  care  in  terms  of  doctors,  nurses,  and  hospitals, 
and  of  the  large  and  varied  groups  of  skilled  technicians  essential  to 
their  work.  Changes  in  the  methods  of  medical  education  require  more 
extensive  laboratories,  more  clinical  material  for  bedside  instruction, 
and  less  didactic  teaching.  The  medical  profession,  which  has  given 
greatly  of  its  time  and  talents  to  teaching  in  our  medical  schools,  now 
finds  the  pressure  of  practice  permits  less  and  less  opportunity  to  teach. 
More  and  more  full-time  teachers  are  now  required  to  do  the  job  that 


THE  STATE   UNIVERSITY  77 

used  to  be  done  by  volunteers.  All  of  these  factors  tend  to  increase  the 
cost  of  teaching  and  to  diminish  the  numbers  that  can  be  properly 
taught. 

Moreover  it  is  essential  that  our  medical  schools  increase  their  out- 
put in  numbers  as  well  as  in  quaUty  if  the  demands  of  individual  health 
are  to  be  met.  It  is  equally  essential  that  our  state  university  medical 
centers  work  with  the  state  and  local  public  health  authorities  if  the 
problems  of  sanitation  and  public  well-being  are  to  be  solved. 

In  no  place  which  I  have  visited  has  there  been  more  awareness  of 
this  vital  need  than  at  The  Ohio  State  University.  Your  great  and 
growing  medical  center,  with  its  intelligently  conceived  program,  com- 
bines the  education  of  doctors,  dentists,  nurses,  pharmacists,  and  tech- 
nologists, with  the  highest  professional  research.  The  education  of  men 
and  women  in  the  science  and  art  of  healing  is  here  combined  to  a 
marked  degree  with  a  study  of  the  underlying  causes  of  disease  and  ill 
health.  The  state  of  Ohio  is  supporting  this  great  undertaking  which 
will  not  only  benefit  the  state  through  the  well-being  of  its  own  citizens 
and  communities,  but  will  contribute  to  the  benefit  of  generations  yet 
unborn,  here  and  elsewhere. 

Moreover,  the  members  of  the  profession  are  themselves  awake  to 
this  critical  condition  in  many  localities.  They  are  putting  their  sup- 
port behind  the  universities  in  their  eflforts  to  provide  adequate  facil- 
ities for  increased  student  bodies  and  regional  hospitals  to  improve 
local  facilities.  In  at  least  one  institution  I  know  of,  the  subject  of 
general  medicine  is  being  taught  as  a  specialty  and  is  ceasing  to  be 
regarded  as  a  stepchild. 

Never  since  our  very  earliest  history  has  the  need  for  doctors  been 
so  great.  The  medical  schools  of  the  country  are  trying  valiantly  to 
meet  the  need;  but  with  the  increase  in  our  population,  with  millions 
of  new  family  units  established  since  the  war,  with  the  increase  in  the 
average  life  span,  with  the  conquest  over  many  forms  of  disease  and 
the  recognition  of  many  others,  a  new  and  a  vigorous  look  is  needed 
into  the  whole  field  of  medical  education.  As  the  frontiers  of  medical 
science  are  pushed  back  the  horizon  widens.  Here  today  is  one  of  the 
greatest  challenges  to  American  professional  education,  pubHc  and 
private  alike. 


78  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

ONE  of  the  fundamental  bases  for  the  establishment  of  this  and 
other  great  land-grant  institutions  was  the  provision  for  agricul- 
ture and  the  mechanic  arts,  for  experiment  stations,  and  for  the  general 
meeting  of  the  needs  of  rural  communities.  As  time  has  gone  on  this 
function  has  expanded  with  the  growth  of  our  population  and  the  com- 
plexity of  our  living  to  provide  not  only  farmers  but  agronomists,  not 
only  mechanics  but  engineers,  not  only  experimentalists  but  research 
scientists  of  the  highest  order.  Graduate  work  in  agriculture  at  The 
Ohio  State  University  is  recognized  across  the  country  as  of  an  excep- 
tionally high  order  which  contributes  not  only  to  the  welfare  of  the 
state,  but  to  the  benefit  of  mankind. 

Indeed  it  may  well  be  doubted  if  Senator  Morrill,  when  he  pro- 
posed the  bill  which  was  passed  in  1862,  could  have  envisaged  the  great 
institutions  which  have  grown  up  under  its  influence  as  agencies  of 
public  welfare.  We  hear  much  today  of  the  danger  of  federal  aid  to 
educational  institutions.  If  the  operation  of  the  land-grant  colleges 
is  any  criterion,  a  pattern  has  been  set  whereby  the  autonomy  of  the 
institution  is  preserved  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  a  portion  of  the  oper- 
ating funds  comes  from  federal  grants. 

But  it  is  basically  important  that  this  autonomy  be  preserved.  The 
state  university  is  in  a  strategic  position  to  know  and  to  meet  the  needs 
of  its  locality.  It  should  preserve  and  develop  the  peculiar  genius  of  our 
people  for  solving  their  own  problems.  If  federal  assistance  to  educa- 
tion is  granted,  it  should  never  be  at  the  price  of  local  control. 

Closely  allied  to  the  previous  topic  of  agriculture  is  the  subject  of 
engineering  education  and  the  application  of  scientific  discoveries  to 
industrial  development.  Whether  the  field  is  agriculture  or  civil, 
mechanical,  chemical,  electrical,  or  aeronautical  engineering,  the  func- 
tion of  the  state  university  is  evident.  Since  World  War  II  the  demand 
for  skilled  persons  in  these  fields  continues  unabated  to  take  up  the 
slack  of  the  fallow  period  during  the  war.  So  great  are  the  demands 
upon  the  students  in  these  fields  and  so  short  is  the  period  of  under- 
graduate preparation  that  the  real  danger  lies  in  the  inadequacy  of 
their  general  education.  The  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Engineering 
Education  has  given  and  is  giving  serious  consideration  to  this  prob- 
lem. It  is  definitely  to  be  hoped  that  some  provision  may  be  made  to 


THE   STATE   UNIVERSITY  79 

improve  the  situation  by  lengthening  the  average  curriculum  to  five 
years,  as  has  been  done  in  large  part  at  this  institution,  or  by  providing 
periods  of  internship  after  graduation  so  as  to  permit  in  the  period  of 
undergraduate  study  more  time  for  the  proper  study  of  mankind. 

The  graduates  of  our  technical  schools  should  be  citizens  first  and 
scientists  second.  It  is  no  bargain  to  graduate  ignorant  specialists.  A 
university  graduate  today  in  any  field  should  have  upon  him  the  mark 
of  the  broadly  educated  person  as  well  as  possess  technical  competence. 
"Who  knows  only  his  own  generation  remains  always  a  child." 

The  number  and  the  complexity  of  professional  schools  in  our 
universities  today  are  as  broad  as  the  needs  of  society:  teaching,  busi- 
ness, pharmacy,  art,  music,  and  so  on  through  the  category  of  human 
interests.  These  subjects  are  highly  proper  functions  of  state  univer- 
sities. But  in  some  instances  the  movement  has  gone  far  beyond  the 
usually  accepted  categories  appropriate  to  institutions  of  higher  learn- 
ing. Indeed  there  are  today  so  many  activities  taught  in  some  of  our 
universities  (not  this  one,  happily)  involving  skills  rather  than  knowl- 
edge that  you  wonder  if  the  pendulum  is  not  swinging  too  far  in  the 
direction  of  utiUtarianism.  What  were  once  seats  of  learning  have 
become  little  more  than  trade  schools,  and  the  criteria  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  new  courses  is  not  the  intellectual  content  of  the  subject  matter 
but  an  overemphasis  on  the  economic  opportunity  for  the  graduate. 
This  tendency  seems  to  be  the  outgrowth  of  our  emphasis  upon  indi- 
vidual rather  than  community  needs. 

WITH  the  growth  of  function  of  the  state  university  has  come  the 
development  of  the  graduate  school  which  cuts  across  practi- 
cally every  branch  of  learning  in  the  institution.  It  is  the  incubator  for 
the  great  research  programs  that  are  developing  with  renewed  vigor 
since  the  war.  There  is  a  noticeable  tendency,  however,  in  the  expan- 
sion of  the  work  of  graduate  schools  to  provide  a  multiplicity  of  de- 
grees. The  danger  here  is  as  severe  as  is  the  danger  of  the  disintegra- 
tion of  education  under  the  free  elective  system.  The  correlation  of 
advanced  studies  under  the  Ph.D.  program  is  well  recognized  and 
wholesome,  but  the  tendency  is  all  too  frequently  to  provide  specialized 
education  in  a  particular  field  and  to  ignore  the  broad  cultural  back- 


8o  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

ground  that  should  characterize  the  doctor's  degree  in  whatever  field 
it  may  be  granted. 

Basically,  hou'ever,  the  graduate  school  in  our  American  univer- 
sities is  responsible  for  one  of  the  most  wholesome  discernible  symp- 
toms of  modern  education — the  development  of  the  creative  capacity 
of  the  individual  student  to  do  independent  and  creative  research.  It  is 
here  that  the  marked  achievements  of  America  in  the  scientific  world 
have  begun.  To  the  graduate  schools  of  the  American  universities  the 
country  owes  an  enormous  debt  for  the  expansion  of  the  horizon  of 
human  knowledge. 

We  may  well  inquire,  as  no  doubt  many  of  us  have,  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  program  of  scientific  research  is  carried  on  at  the  expense 
of  teaching  our  undergraduate  students.  So  far  as  I  am  aware  the 
universal  experience  is  that  a  well-conceived  research  program  instead 
of  interfering  with  teaching,  actually  enhances  it.  Creative  minds  are 
retained  on  the  faculties.  Opportunities  for  graduate  instruction  are 
greatly  multiplied.  Student  interest  is  aroused  and  maintained  as  never 
before.  And  last  but  by  no  means  least,  the  boundaries  of  human 
knowledge  are  expanded  to  the  eventual  betterment  of  mankind. 

The  one  danger  of  the  progress  is  the  tendency  toward  imbalance. 
The  major  part  of  university  research  today  is  in  the  field  of  the  phys- 
ical sciences;  whereas  the  need  is  greater  than  ever  before  for  more 
understanding  in  the  field  of  the  social  sciences,  in  economics,  in  gov- 
ernment, in  labor  relations,  and  in  the  international  aspects  of  all  of 
these  subjects.  That  this  imbalance  may  be  corrected,  that  we  may 
learn  to  understand  all  we  know  and  to  put  it  to  constructive  uses  is 
the  consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished. 

The  condition  of  which  I  speak  is  exemplified  by  the  emphasis 
upon  the  physical  sciences  and  is  an  understandable  but  an  alarming 
consequence  of  the  impact  of  the  war  upon  our  civilization.  Concerned 
as  we  have  been  with  the  preservation  of  the  nation  and  our  survival 
as  individuals,  of  necessity  we  have  turned  to  the  creation  of  instru- 
ments which  lengthen  the  arm  and  enhance  the  power  of  the  indi- 
vidual. These  instruments  have  been  developed  by  the  growth  of 
science  and  by  its  application  to  the  widest  extent  yet  attained  in  the 
history  of  mankind.  We  have  encouraged  scientists  in  every  laboratory 


THE  STATE   UNIVERSITY  ol 

in  the  nation  to  advance  their  discoveries  and  to  perfect  the  means  of 
their  appHcation  in  order  that  they  might  be  used  for  purposes  of 
destruction.  The  result  of  this  has  been  greatly  to  overemphasize  the 
destructive  powers  of  scientific  discoveries ;  we  blame  the  results  on  the 
discoveries  themselves  rather  than  upon  the  use  to  which  we  have  put 
them.  Atomic  fission  is  of  itself  neither  moral  nor  immoral.  It  is  of 
itself  an  example,  and  a  most  tragic  one,  of  mankind's  knowledge  of, 
and  control  over,  his  physical  environment.  It  is  unfortunate,  to  say 
the  least,  that  the  brilliant  scientists  who  participated  in  the  work  of 
this  discovery  possess  a  sense  of  guilt  and  are  almost  impelled  to 
apologize  for  the  results  which  have  been  called  into  being  from  their 
efiforts. 

THE  obvious  fact  is  that  as  a  people,  we  have  not  yet  attained  a 
maturity  in  our  capacity  to  resolve  the  social  and  governmental 
affairs  of  men  commensurate  with  our  maturity  in  controlling  our 
physical  environment.  Clearly,  then,  the  need  for  the  future  of  man- 
kind is  emphasis  upon  our  social,  economic,  governmental,  and  inter- 
national relations.  Clearly,  as  we  heard  from  a  distinguished  scholar 
last  evening,  humanity's  need  is  for  the  humanities. 

As  a  place  where  people  of  all  races,  creeds,  and  environments 
gather  for  study,  the  university  is  the  ideal  location  for  the  conduct  of 
this  endeavor;  but  if  its  work  in  this  particular  is  to  be  effective,  it 
cannot  be  confined  only  to  the  students  of  the  coming  generation.  The 
need  is  immediate.  If  public  opinion  is  to  support  progress  in  inter- 
national relations,  it  can  only  be  developed  through  agencies  of  adult 
education  and  by  arousing  the  public  consciousness  to  the  dire  conse- 
quences of  a  cold  war  which  later  may  possibly  be  heated  to  the  boiling 
point. 

Efforts  have  been  made  in  this  direction  by  appealing  to  the  fear 
impulses  of  our  people.  Books,  speeches,  plays,  and  radio  programs 
have  been  designed  to  frighten  the  American  populace  into  a  state  of 
mind  which  will  make  them  receptive  to  the  brotherhood  of  nations. 
Such  an  endeavor,  in  my  judgment,  is  doomed  to  failure.  It  may 
dramatize  the  need  but  it  cannot  change  the  heart.  Not  until  a  rea- 
soned judgment  compelling  action,  has  been  reached,  will  the  agencies 


82  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

of  international  relations  be  modified  to  effectiveness;  and  not  until  the 
u^ill  of  the  people,  acting  through  their  representatives,  is  based  upon 
legal  rather  than  political  consequences,  will  a  stable  order  be  reached 
in  international  affairs.  We  must,  therefore,  emphasize  more  than  ever 
before,  the  importance  of  the  need  for  research,  study,  and  education 
in  human  relations  the  world  over. 

How  evident  it  is  that  the  state  university  of  seventy-five  years  ago 
with  its  small  beginnings,  its  classical  curriculum,  and  its  limited 
campus  has  become  an  instrument  in  the  lives  of  people  and  of  service 
to  the  democracy.  Coming  from  the  people,  it  must,  if  it  is  to  justify 
its  existence,  give  back  to  them  in  an  increasing  measure  its  knowledge 
of  the  past,  its  sense  of  values  for  the  present,  and  its  hope  and  aspira- 
tions for  the  future.  This  one  in  particular,  Mr.  President,  has  well 
and  truly  served  the  people  of  its  state  and  nation.  If  I  were  to  ask  my 
colleagues  among  the  state  universities  of  America,  I  am  confident 
that  they  would  say  with  me  to  The  Ohio  State  University,  "Well 
done,  thou  good  and  faithful  servant." 


EDUCATION  FOR  SURVIVAL 
By  W.  W.  Waymack 

PRESIDENT  Bevis,  when  writing  me  with  reference  to  the  subject 
matter  of  this  address,  used  the  phraseology  "the  paramount 
aspects  of  university  responsibiUty  in  the  world  of  today  and  to- 
morrow." He  added  something  about  "the  general  field  of  science  and 
technology."  I  applaud  the  fact  that  here  in  a  celebration  of  seventy- 
five  years  of  fine  accomplishment  by  one  of  our  great  state  universities, 
eyes  are  turned  only  fleetingly  to  the  past  and  focused  really  on  today 
and  tomorrow,  most  of  all  on  tomorrow.  The  word  "responsibility"  is 
indeed  the  proper  one.  Any  attempt  of  mine,  however,  to  define  the 
university's  present  or  future  responsibilities  is  limited  (or  on  second 
thought,  perhaps  the  reverse)  by  the  fact  that  I  am  not  a  professional 
educator — university  or  any  other  kind. 

Our  educational  processes  in  my  opinion  are  inadequate.  They 
cannot  wisely  be  considered  adequate  to  guarantee  survival  in  the  kind 
of  world  that  has  evolved.  This  is  true  if  we  think  of  survival  in  the 
relatively  narrow,  though  hardly  unimportant,  sense  of  being  sure  that 
we  do  not  lose  a  war  if  war  comes.  It  is  true  if  we  think  of  survival,  as 
we  should,  in  the  broadest  possible  sense — preservation  of  the  great 
values  of  our  kind  of  life,  the  values  that  constitute  the  Liberal  Idea. 

It  is  also  true,  I  believe  firmly,  that  our  over-all  educational  proc- 
esses serve  and  help  the  people  as  a  whole  more  widely  than  those  of 
any  other  nation — any  large  nation,  at  any  rate.  But  that  is  no  answer 
to  the  question  as  to  whether  they  are  good  enough.  There  cannot 
even  be  a  rational  question  as  to  whether  they  are  as  good  as  they 
could  be  made.  Although  I  make  such  a  statement  about  education 
as  an  admitted  dilettante  in  that  field,  I  have  in  years  past  emphasized 
repeatedly  the  need  for  improvement  in  my  own  profession  or  trade, 
that  of  the  press.  I  believe  that  improvement  is  needed  in  all  our 
agencies  of  education.  The  conditions  and  problems  that  we  shall  be 
steadily  facing  are  such  as  to  make  more  adequate  education  far  and 
away  the  central  concern  of  all  of  us. 

I  speak  as  a  citizen  who  has  that  concern  and  that  conviction,  as  a 

83 


84  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

citizen  who  has  happened  for  a  little  while  to  share  the  responsibility,  as 
a  public  official,  for  the  most  portentous  new  development  of  our  times. 
That  experience  has  greatly  reinforced  my  conviction;  for  the  many  dif- 
ficult problems  which  this  new  development  raises,  while  wearing  the 
aspect  of  uniqueness,  are  essentially  like  our  other  major  problems  in 
that  they  are  dilemmatic,  in  that  they  are  at  bottom  problems  of  educa- 
tion. They  go  clear  across  the  board,  affecting  us  ultimately  in  practi- 
cally all  aspects  of  our  lives.  And  they  bring  a  new  urgency  as  to 
time,  as  to  the  rate  at  which  we  must  make  progress  educationally. 

We  do  our  educating  with  a  three-pronged  system,  or  a  two- 
pronged  system  plus  a  "benign  chaos"  operation.  First,  of  course,  is 
the  pubhc  school  system  with  its  supplement  of  a  few  private  schools. 
Second  is  the  college  and  university  system.  As  President  Stearns  has 
emphasized,  this  level  of  education  is  enriched  by  the  state  university 
system  plus  privately  endowed  universities.  In  addition  to  these 
bases  of  our  whole  educational  system — the  public  school  system,  the 
colleges  and  universities — there  is  a  complex  that  properly  falls  under 
the  heading,  adult  education.  These  systems  or  levels  are  all  inter- 
related but  in  some  important  respects  are  not  related  closely  enough. 
There  is  great  need,  for  example,  of  a  more  vital  relationship  between 
the  universities  and  adult  education.  Indeed,  at  the  present  time, 
among  the  most  effective  of  our  agencies  for  adult  education  are  our 
economic  pressure  groups.  There  are  lessons  to  be  learned  from  their 
methods,  but  there  are  obvious  limitations  in  the  results  that  they  can 
achieve.  There  are  equally  obvious  and  greater  needs  for  an  education 
which  goes  above  and  beyond  the  pressure  groups  and  points  authen- 
tically to  the  general  interest. 

I  have  a  layman's  awareness  of  certain  difficult  and  important 
problems  of  the  universities  and  colleges,  such  as  the  one  which  Karl 
T.  Compton  is,  I  believe,  currently  and  wisely  spotlighting — the  dual 
responsibility  of  carrying  as  much  as  possible  of  education  to  as  large 
a  number  as  possible  and  of  simultaneously  providing  stimulus  and 
opportunity  for  the  exceptionally  equipped.  I  have  the  same  limited 
layman's  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  the  "Great  Books"  debate. 
There  are,  of  course,  other  problems.  Their  importance  in  clarifying 
both   educational  objectives  and  educational  approaches   is  obvious. 


EDUCATION    FOR   SURVIVAL  85 

But  it  is  inevitable  that  I  should  come  to  objectives  very  broadly  and 
to  methods  very  diffidently  if  at  all.  Perhaps  naively,  I  believe  that 
answers  even  to  the  toughest  and  most  important  questions  like  those 
I  have  glanced  at  can  best  be  got,  can  indeed  only  be  got,  through 
reference  to  a  frame  of  grand  objectives  within  which  they  all  belong. 
I  can  only  try  to  perceive  such  a  frame  through  the  needs  and  urgencies 
that  my  own  set  of  anxious  responsibilities  has  driven  in  upon  me. 

As  to  universities,  they  produce  graduates,  including  specialists  of 
many  kinds.  They  teach  and  train.  They  are  users  and  distributors  of 
the  acquired  knowledge  of  the  race.  They  are  centers  of  research  for 
advance  to  more  knowledge  and  for  better  understanding  of  its  impli- 
cations. They  are  incubators  of  ideas,  theses,  scholarly  books  which 
carry  education  slowly  through  the  whole  of  our  society.  Their  real 
functions  in  a  free  country  are  complex,  numerous,  and  broad.  Above 
all  they  are  a  part — vital  but  just  a  part — of  the  total  educational  process 
on  which  everything  depends.  The  real  measure  of  their  contribution 
is  in  terms  of  that  total  process. 

Our  deepest  problems,  our  toughest  dilemmas,  are  the  kind  that 
put  requirements  upon  the  whole  of  our  education.  They  are  not 
soluble  by  any  part  of  it  alone,  not  by  the  universities  alone.  But  the 
role  of  the  universities  in  solving  them  is  critical,  strategic.  The  univer- 
sities largely  determine  what  our  education  shall  be  like,  how  effective, 
how  nearly  adequate.  In  the  end,  education  at  the  lower  levels  is  in  a 
considerable  degree  what  higher  education  makes  it;  the  ways  it  does 
this,  direct  and  indirect,  are  numerous.  Probably  the  converse  also  is 
true.  If  there  are  today  grave  and  urgent  needs  running  deep  through 
all  our  education,  the  universities  and  university  people  surely  must  see 
them,  face  them,  lead  in  meeting  them,  and  help  to  swing  the  whole 
of  our  education  toward  the  essential  contributions. 

I  HAVE  acquired  my  notion  of  what  these  deepest  needs  are,  as  I  have 
said,  through  my  experience  of  two  years  in  the  strangest  business 
on  earth — the  mushroom  cloud  business.  In  the  first  place,  this  business 
is  an  epochal  break-through  into  a  new  world  of  knowledge — only  a 
break-through,  only  a  beginning.  It  is  a  great  and  complex  going 
concern  as  an  industry.    I  use  "industry"  in  the  broad  sense  for  an 


86 


SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 


industry  that  is  all  about  us,  although  as  a  people  we  are  almost 
entirely  unconscious  of  it.  It  is  as  if  there  were  a  second  and  invisible 
America  grown-up  and  threaded  through  the  rest  of  our  America. 
And  that  is  certainly  true  of  the  state  of  Ohio.  This  new  development 
is  also  of  vital  military  significance.  It  is  also  an  adventurous  and 
potentially  dangerous  experiment  in  government.  It  is  scientific  re- 
search, development,  and  application  on  a  prodigious  scale,  with  the 
pressures  of  a  troubled  world  situation  behind  it.  Atomic  energy  is 
indeed  a  challenge  to  education;  it  is  dependent  for  its  future,  good 
or  bad,  upon  education. 

I  could  very  easily  center  my  attention  on  specific  educational 
needs.  I  could  repeat,  for  it  would  be  repetition,  that  the  greatest 
bottleneck  affecting  rapid  progress  is  lack  of  scientists  and  engineers, 
that  more  fine  ones  must  be  trained,  and  that  the  universities  must 
train  them.  That  would  be  accurate.  Consider  it  said  with  just  one 
addition  as  a  reminder,  that  the  universities  alone  cannot  do  it.  Even 
to  meet  this  quite  specific  need,  education  at  the  high-school  level  must 
do  its  part,  for  the  universities  train  in  science  and  engineering  only 
those  who  come  up  to  them. 

I  could  proceed  by  pointing  to  the  new  careers  and  the  new  sub- 
divisions of  old  careers  that  the  break-through  of  knowledge  has 
opened  up  already  and  will  continue  to  open  up.  Some  months  ago  I 
tried  to  make  up  a  list  of  new  careers  and  significant  modifications  and 
alterations  of  old  ones.  The  list,  although  incomplete,  of  course,  was 
long.  In  time  these  changes  will  affect  many  university  departments 
and  need  to  be  studied  by  practically  all  of  them;  I  would  not  exclude 
even  the  theological  school. 

But,  though  I  added  a  dozen  other  specific  and  truly  important 
needs  of  the  nation  that  are  special  calls  on  the  universities,  I  could 
easily  miss  completely  my  real  concern.  I  have  gone  through  a  two- 
year  process  of  being  educated,  of  perceiving  and  worrying  about  a 
great  many  specific  problems  and  needs,  and  of  finding  gradually  and 
inexorably  my  real  anxiety  centering  on  needs  far  more  general  and 
fundamental  than  any  or  all  of  the  acute  specific  ones. 

Let  me  pull  out  for  illustration  one  or  two  only  of  the  problems 
that  are  central  and  pervasive  in  our  whole  atomic-energy  development. 


EDUCATION   FOR   SURVIVAL  87 

I  say  "for  illustration"  because  I  could  pull  out  many  another  for  the 
same  purpose  and  because  it  is  not  the  number  and  complexity  of 
problems  but  their  nature  that  I  want  to  expose.  Bear  in  mind  that 
this  strange  problem  of  ours  is  like  a  buried  mastodon  with  a  great 
many  tails,  the  tips  of  them  just  above  the  sod.  Mowing  off  tail  tips  is 
useless.  Take  hold  of  any  of  them  and  really  pull,  and  the  earth  begins 
to  move  and  the  gigantic  shape  to  reveal  itself. 

FOR  the  first  of  my  illustrations,  we  must  start  at  the  base  of  our  firm 
national  policy.  Recognizing  that  the  potentials  of  atomic  energy 
both  for  war  and  peace  are  vast  and  that  the  two  sets  of  potentials  are 
closely  intertwined  in  exploitation  of  the  new  field  of  knowledge,  we 
want  supra-national  control  of  the  dangerous  phases  but,  as  long  as 
this  is  lacking,  we  must  put  national  security  first.  Such  is  our  policy. 

But  how  does  one  do  that?  What  constitutes  national  security  in 
terms  of  atomic-energy  development.''  Possible  answers  boil  down  to 
the  alternative,  posed  originally  by  the  scientists:  "Security  through 
secrecy  or  security  through  achievement.''"  In  the  last  few  years  the 
most  grotesque  misconception,  which  envisaged  a  single  master  secret 
monopolized  by  us,  has  been  almost  destroyed  (I  hope  it  has  been), 
but  the  question  is  still  with  us,  just  as  tough  as  ever.  For  every  mis- 
conception that  is  destroyed,  two  new  ones  seem  to  arise.  Where  to 
find  the  balance  between  reliance  on  secrecy  and  reliance  on  getting 
ahead  is  a  continuing  question,  and  it  is  one  that  is  answerable  not  in 
terms  of  agreement  in  principle  but  only  in  terms  of  specific  decisions. 

Now  it  is  not  extremely  difficult  to  get  agreement  in  principle 
today  among  intelligent  men — scientists,  engineers,  industriahsts,  pub- 
lic administrators,  miUtary  men,  those  in  politics  who  are  informed, 
and  our  diplomats — that,  for  anything  but  the  shortest  run,  the  main 
reliance  must  be  on  progress.  Yet  it  is  altogether  possible,  despite  this 
bending  to  resistless  logic,  for  the  reality  to  be  a  greater  and  greater 
reliance  month  by  month  on  precisely  the  opposite  practice. 

The  reasons  for  this  danger,  and  indeed  I  think  it  is  a  danger,  are 
various.  One  is  the  tendency  for  secrecy  in  government  to  creep,  to 
cover  always  more  and  more;  "security"  is  a  wonderful  cloak.  An- 
other is  the  simplicity  of  the  sccurity-through-secrecy  idea;  it  is  so  easy 


88  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

to  grasp,  it  is  so  tempting  as  a  retreat  from  complexity.  Another  of  the 
reasons  is  the  fear  psychosis — which  does  not  suffer  from  lack  of 
stimulation — to  which  timid  public  servants  can  react  by  always  "play- 
ing it  safe"  at  the  moment  and  in  the  specific  case,  though  that  poUcy 
be  for  the  long  pull  "playing  it  reckless"  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
national  interest.  This  is  a  danger  of  which  we  on  the  Commission 
are  acutely  conscious.  Underlying  all  these  reasons  and  others,  there  is 
the  want  of  public  education  as  to  the  nature  of  this  problem. 

Think  also  how  this  question  of  security  through  secrecy  ramifies 
when  closely  inspected.  Remember  that  this  nation  has  never  before 
had  experience  with  a  situation  in  which  the  temptation  is  to  identify 
security  with  secrecy.  Remember  that  only  the  totalitarian  nations 
have  really  had  such  experience.  The  fact  that  it  has  not  been  a  very 
successful  experience  may  be  irrelevant  or  may  not  be.  Bear  in  mind 
that  Nazi  reUance  on  secrecy,  behind  which  they  developed  for  blitz 
war  the  skillful  combination  of  aviation  and  armor,  and  the  Japanese 
reliance  on  secrecy,  behind  which  they  built  better  airplanes  and  better 
torpedoes  and  two  65,000-ton  battleships  with  eighteen-inch  guns,  were 
not  comparable  with  what  major  American  reliance  on  secrecy  in 
atomic  energy  could  become. 

For  in  this  field  we  have  not  something  like  a  new  and  better 
90-mm  gun.  We  have  the  break-through  into  a  new  world  of  scientific 
knowledge.  The  exploitation  already  spreads  through  major  segments 
of  our  national  life,  including  the  industrial  and  academic.  Our  uni- 
versities are  deeply  involved.  The  whole  course  and  trend  of  science, 
of  basic  national  attitudes  toward  science  is  involved.  We  as  a  people 
could  too  easily  come  to  regard  all  progress  in  the  nuclear  sciences  from 
now  on  as  presumably  "classified"  (meaning  necessarily  secret)  and 
subject  only  to  bit-by-bit  declassification  through  unworkable  processes. 

Bear  in  mind  that  if  the  nation  in  effect  comes  to  rely  for  its 
security  on  secrecy  rather  than  on  progress  even  though  heads  may 
nod  all  over  the  place  in  agreement  that  the  opposite  ought  to  be  true, 
this  reliance  has  its  implications.  It  means  that  fewer  and  fewer  will 
know  enough  to  participate  in  progress.  Given  time,  I  could  outline 
field  after  field  in  which  scientific  progress  is  dependent  on  informa- 
tion, from  basic  research  in  nuclear  physics  to  the  processing  of  low- 


EDUCATION   FOR   SURVIVAL  89 

grade  ores  for  uranium,  and  in  which  the  price  that  would  have  to  be 
paid  for  security  through  secrecy  would  be  stupendous. 

Now  let  me  spell  out  just  one  example,  the  last  one  that  I  have 
suggested.  I  have  deliberately  chosen  that  one  because  it  is  remotest  in 
the  process  stream  from  weapons  and  also  because,  while  apparently 
remote  from  the  university  field,  it  is  not  actually  so  at  all.  I  mentioned 
the  processing  of  low-grade  ores  for  uranium.  Now  the  secrecy  basis 
of  security  is  jeopardized  every  time  you  let  one  more  man  know  the 
"facts  of  life"  about  even  one  phase.  This  is  mathematics,  not  patriot- 
ism or  morals.  Yet  there  is  no  way  of  progressing  in  developing  new 
technical  processes  for  a  new  kind  of  job  except  by  getting  more  brains 
to  work  at  it — in  this  case  largely  the  brains  involved  in  present  indus- 
trial operations  in  various  mineral  fields.  The  fact  that  a  problem  even 
exists  here  indicates  how  pervasive  and  spreading  the  reliance  on 
secrecy  tends  to  become.  It  illustrates  how  in  the  name  of  security  sec- 
recy can  cripple  security.  And,  since  the  brains  and  resources  of  many 
university  laboratories  can  clearly  help  the  industrial  staffs,  it  illustrates 
again  that  wherever  we  take  hold  of  this  concern  for  the  national 
security,  we  can  find  at  least  one  vital  cord  leading  into  the  univer- 
sities— and,  if  we  look  more  intently,  usually  quite  a  few  cords,  some 
of  them  the  size  of  hawsers. 

I  have  been  dealing  with  the  secrecy-through-security  idea  so  far 
in  terms  of  easily  measurable  results.  But  the  implications  do  not  stop 
there.  To  indicate  their  extent  I  merely  ask:  What  becomes  of  the 
principle  and  reality  of  democracy  if  the  people  as  a  whole  know 
nothing  as  to  where  they  stand  security-wise,  as  to  what  is  being  plan- 
ned and  done  and  why,  and  even  as  to  what  it  is  that  they  must 
themselves  be  prepared  to  meet  and  deal  with .''  Questions  like  this  are 
with  me  and  my  colleagues  all  the  time,  and  always  in  relation  to  the 
solemn  injunction  of  the  Atomic  Energy  Act  that  consideration  of  the 
national  defense  and  security  must  today  be  paramount. 

All  this  and  more  is  involved  in  the  one  illustrative  question  raised 
by  atomic  energy  in  the  world  as  it  is — a  question  that  is  so  commonly 
looked  upon  as  simple  and  obvious,  with  a  simple  answer  in  black  and 
white.  I  pulled  on  the  tip  of  just  one  of  the  tails  of  the  buried  mas- 
todon, and  see  what  has  appeared.  I  could  have  pulled  at  many  others. 


90  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

CONSIDER  now  another  part  of  the  picture  closely  related  to  the  illus- 
tration I  have  discussed — really  a  part  of  it — and  also  forced  upon 
us  by  the  state  of  the  world :  the  dependability  of  people.  This  problem 
is  much  broader  than  its  bearing  upon  the  broad  atomic-energy  field, 
but  I  shall  stick  to  that  aspect  of  dependability. 

Fifth  columnism  with  all  its  methods  is  a  reality  that  we  cannot 
dodge.  As  a  result,  everybody  who  works  in  atomic  energy  close 
enough  to  classified  information  to  have  presumable  access  to  some  of 
it,  from  scientists  to  laborers,  must  be  investigated  and  "cleared."  In 
the  case  of  organized  laborers,  even  those  at  a  distance  who  have  dis- 
ciplinary authority  over  workers  must  be  investigated.  During  the  war 
when  atomic  energy  was  a  military  mission  (I  am  quoting  from  recent 
statements  of  General  Groves)  some  six  hundred  thousand  individuals 
were  employed  at  one  time  or  another.  All  of  those  persons  may  be 
assumed  to  have  been  investigated  in  one  way  or  another.  Records  of 
one  kind  or  another,  including  anything  findable  that  looked  derog- 
atory, came  into  existence.  Operating  now  under  the  Atomic  Energy 
Act,  we  have  some  three-score  thousand  who  are  subject  to  very  thor- 
ough background  investigation.  Naturally,  there  continues  to  be  both 
an  over-all  increase  and  a  turnover  every  year.  The  net  result  is  that 
for  the  first  time  in  our  history  we  have  in  the  files  of  government 
confidential  dossiers  about  a  significant  number  of  people,  a  number 
that  grows  daily.  The  personal  histories  on  file  have  to  do,  not  with 
loyalty  alone,  but  also  with  character  and  associations;  that  is  what  the 
law  says,  and  the  interpretation  can  be  as  broad  as  all  outdoors. 

Of  course,  the  great  majority  of  all  investigations  turn  up  for  the 
records  nothing  troublesome  as  to  loyalty  or  even  associations  and 
character.  We  should  not  get  exaggerated  impressions.  My  point 
merely  is  that  this  process,  at  least  as  to  scale,  is  new  in  our  experience. 
I  can  see  no  possible  alternative.  It  has  to  be.  But  it  is  not  without 
possible  dangers. 

There  are  those,  including  men  sincere  and  able  and  deeply  patri- 
otic, who  seem  to  favor  applying  a  sort  of  "Caesar's  wife"  principle  to 
this  problem.  Their  view  seems  to  run  like  this:  Nobody  against 
whom  anybody  else  can  cast  a  suspicion  should  be  allowed  within  gun- 
shot of  atomic-energy  work.   If  such  suspicion  arise  after  a  man  is  in 


EDUCATION   FOR   SURVIVAL  9I 

such  work,  then,  even  at  the  risk  of  injustice  to  a  considerable  number 
of  citizens,  the  nation's  interest  must  come  first.  This  requires  instant 
decapitation — off  with  his  head,  firing  and  blackening  without  pro- 
cedures designed  to  assure  as  much  fairness  as  possible. 

Now  we  who  bear  the  responsibility  in  atomic-energy  affairs  have 
rejected  this  extreme  view.  We  have  set  up  procedures  aimed  to  be 
fair,  as  well  as  to  give  real  protection  against  the  harm  that  could  be 
done  by  the  subversive  or  the  unstable.  It  may  well  be  true  that  some 
injustice  is  inevitable,  men  being  fallible,  including  even  us.  No  one 
should  be  happy  about  that.  Injustice  is  hardly  compatible  with  "the 
American  way."  Since  accomplishing  anything  is  dependent  on  people, 
the  wanted  result  of  greater  security  would  hardly  be  got  by  the  drastic 
poUcy  that  some  advocate.  It  runs  in  my  mind  that  John  L.  Lewis  has 
said  some  things  recently  about  Mr.  Truman  that  could  raise  doubt, 
if  taken  seriously,  as  to  the  suitability  of  Mr.  Truman  for  access  to 
restricted  data.  If  one  does  not  take  such  remarks  seriously,  it  is  still 
unfortunately  true  that  not  many  people  are  of  such  sort  throughout 
their  lives  that  no  other  fallible  human  being  conceivably  could  put 
into  a  secret  record  a  nasty  accusation  against  them. 

Not  as  a  scare,  for  I  do  not  think  the  worst  is  going  to  happen, 
but  as  a  warning  of  what  has  happened  again  and  again  in  human 
experience,  I  suggest  that  the  possible  imphcations  of  this  whole  dif- 
ficult dilemma  be  thought  about  by  the  American  people,  and  perhaps 
especially  by  educators.  Can  we  really  make  ourselves  stronger  by 
junking  our  concern  for  justice,  even  if  we  junk  it  sadly?  We  have 
never  had  to  face  on  such  a  national  scale  such  a  problem  before.  It 
looks  as  if  we  shall  have  to  face  it  now  for  quite  some  years  to  come. 
They  can  be  perilous  years  in  which  survival  may  need  to  be  thought 
of  in  terms  of  "survival  of  what?"  I  am  confident  that  the  American 
people  can  handle  that  issue,  dilemmas  being  "their  meat,"  if  education 
in  the  broadest  sense  helps  them  see  relationships. 

NEEDLESS  and  boring  as  repetition  may  be,  I  repeat  that  it  is  the 
nature  of  the  problems  when  pursued  through  their  implications 
that  I  am  aiming  at  solely.  I  could  pick  out  not  a  score  only,  not  a 
hundred  only,  but  I  honestly  believe  a  thousand  specific  problems  of 


92  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

some  interest  to  you  as  citizens  and  as  university  educators.  It  takes 
restraint  not  to  bring  up  more  of  them.  I  shall  deal  with  just  one  more, 
again  with  emphasis  on  the  nature  of  the  problem,  again  with  an  effort 
to  suggest  its  implications,  again  with  the  conviction  that  digging  out 
imphcations  is  the  most  important  concern  of  all.  And  it  occurs  to  me 
that  if  the  statement  that  the  digging  out  of  implications  is  the  most 
important  concern  of  all  be  true,  then  the  statement  itself  has  implica- 
tions for  education  and  the  universities. 

My  one  additional  illustration  is  the  problem  of  science  in  relation 
to  strength,  in  relation  to  values,  in  relation  to  survival,  and  therefore 
in  relation  to  education. 

Our  dependence  on  science  and  technology  both  for  military  de- 
fense and  for  economic  welfare  is  obvious.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  on  the  military  side  this  dependence  goes  far  beyond  atomic 
energy,  crucial  though  that  development  is  to  our  safety.  Not  so 
obvious,  however,  is  our  dependence  upon  co-operation  between  the 
natural  and  the  social  sciences  in  the  kind  of  world  which  has  evolved 
as  a  result  of  the  break-through  into  the  nucleus  of  the  atom — a  rela- 
tionship particularly  emphasized  by  Mr.  Stearns  in  his  address  at  one 
of  these  meetings.  Because  of  that  break-through,  the  natural  scientist 
is  forced  to  join  with  the  social  scientist  as  a  participant  in  public 
affairs.  This  assumption  of  "public"  responsibility  is,  I  believe,  per- 
manent, irreversible,  and  essential,  though  I  have  been  able  to  under- 
stand the  reserve  of  some  natural  scientists  and  though  I  did  not  have 
two  years  ago  the  conviction  that  I  have  just  expressed.  That  there  are 
some  risks  in  this  to  scientists  and  science  is  doubtless  true;  yet  the 
situation  cannot  from  now  on  be  otherwise.  The  atom  bomb  is  not 
the  last  result  of  research  in  natural  science  that  will  have  social  impli- 
cations which  the  natural  scientist  himself  will  have  to  think  about  and 
with  which  he  must  be  socially  helpful.  In  so  far  as  there  is  a  gulf 
between  the  natural  scientist  and  the  social  scientist,  that  gulf  needs 
bridging — and  the  bridging  must  be  a  constant  process,  particularly  in 
the  universities,  not  a  broken  process  taken  up  as  an  emergency  every 
ten  years. 

Since  we  do  depend  vitally  on  science  and  technology,  we  depend 
on  scientists  and  technicians,  and  I  mean  to  include  engineers.  Of 
course  we  need  more.    And  here,  I  submit,  is  a  rather  far-reaching 


EDUCATION   FOR   SURVIVAL  93 

educational  implication  of  that  need.  If  any  considerable  areas  or 
strata  in  our  country  lack  equality  of  educational  opportunity  frcJm 
grade  school  to  university,  then  we  shall  be  foregoing  the  use  in  the 
future  of  the  scientific  and  technical  potential  within  that  part  of  our 
population.  For  sheer  military  defense,  not  to  mention  other  consid- 
erations, serious  inequality  of  educational  opportunity  affecting  any 
considerable  part  of  our  young  population  is  something  we  can  no 
longer  afford.  Perhaps,  if  that  fact  becomes  well  understood  we  shall 
get  the  money  needed  to  provide  equal  educational  opportunity. 

I  have  just  one  other  thing  to  say  about  science  in  general,  for  I 
am  only  "hitting  the  high  spots"  or,  rather,  the  deep  spots,  as  I  have 
come  to  perceive  them  through  my  own  recent  postgraduate  experi- 
ence. I  have  already  mentioned  the  danger  of  stifling  essential  progress 
by  drifting — partly  through  current  fear  and  partly  through  inheri- 
tance from  the  last  war — into  the  notion  that  all  natural  science,  or  at 
least  all  nuclear  science,  must  be  presumed  to  be  "classified"  save  as 
bits  of  knowledge  from  time  to  time  may  be  found  safe  for  declassifi- 
cation. We  should  be  sunk  if  that  came  about. 

There  is  also  the  danger  that,  because  of  wartime  experience  and 
inadequate  past  education,  the  very  nature  of  scientific  research  in  the 
frame  of  the  American  philosophy  may  not  be  understood  either  by 
the  public  or  by  national  policy  makers.  The  notion  that  only  such 
research  is  important  as  is  directed  to  immediately  needed,  specific 
ends,  and  therefore  only  that  is  deserving  of  support,  is  an  easy  one  to 
fall  into.  This  notion  is  a  natural  reaction,  I  think,  of  the  ill-informed 
to  an  experience  which  suggests  that  given  billions  and  priorities  any 
specific  goal  can  be  reached.  Such  an  attitude  is  dangerous  because  it 
would  choke  the  spring  that  fills  the  reservoirs  of  basic  scientific  knowl- 
edge, from  which  all  streams  of  "practical  application"  flow. 

As  we  reflect  upon  this  danger,  we  also  should  reflect  that  the 
further  we  drift  from  the  concept  of  scientific  research  as  essentially 
the  pursuit  of  knowledge  and  the  more  we  are  tempted  to  accept  the 
view  that  research  makes  no  sense  unless  directed  to  meet  urgent 
perceivable  needs,  the  more  we  have  nuzzled  up  to  a  whiskered 
gentleman  named  Marx.  We  could  easily,  with  respect  to  science, 
swallow  the  whole  pill  of  Marxian  doctrine,  tasting  only  the  sugar  and 
peppermint.    For  of  course  the  recent  news  about  orders  from  the 


94  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

Politburo  to  Soviet  scientists  to  stick  to  the  party  line  of  Lamarckian 
genetics  was  no  news  to  the  broadly  informed  scientist  and  educator. 
It  was  merely  an  instance,  made  popularly  newsworthy  by  the  time, 
of  the  dogma  of  economic  determinism  for  everything — science,  art, 
even  religion.  It  might  be  quite  useful  if  all  our  public  leaders,  policy- 
making public  leaders  included,  were  helped  to  see  this.  I  am  tempted 
to  be  indiscreet  and  add  money  appropriators  too. 

Admittedly  it  is  a  little  difficult  to  fit  the  discovery  of  nuclear 
fission  into  the  category  of  an  obvious  response  to  the  urgent  needs  of 
this  generation.  And  I  suggest  the  possibility,  as  my  colleague  Robert 
Bacher,  an  authentic  scientist,  once  suggested  it  to  me,  that  adherence 
to  our  own  concept  of  the  importance  of  untrammeled  basic  scientific 
research  could  be  our  most  potent  "secret  weapon" — secret,  of  course, 
only  from  those  so  blinded  by  dogma  that  they  refuse  to  see. 

GETTING  into  the  nucleus  of  the  atom  and  doing  things  with  some 
of  its  pieces  is  indeed  likely,  as  our  federal  law  says,  to  "cause 
profound  changes  in  our  present  way  of  life."  It  is  indeed  true  that  its 
eflect  "upon  the  social,  economic  and  political  structures  of  today  can- 
not now  be  determined."  But  the  essential  nature  of  the  problems  is 
not  undiscernible.  Not  altogether.  Since  this  advance  in  knowledge 
of  nature  was  not  really  a  bolt  from  the  blue  but  rather  the  latest 
product  of  a  long  process  of  scientific  research  and  technical  applica- 
tion, it  is  not  surprising  that  the  problems  which  it  makes  more 
inescapable,  more  urgent,  more  critical  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
survival  of  our  values,  are  problems  recognized  before. 

They  are  indeed  more  urgent,  for  they  are  at  bottom  educational 
problems.  And  the  truly  relevant  education,  as  I  see  it,  can  be  sub- 
sumed under  three  categories:  first,  education  about  democracy — the 
wide  recapturing  of  a  fuller  understanding  of  the  meaning  behind 
shibboleths,  of  the  values  that  we  must  preserve,  of  the  reasons  why 
they  are  values,  and  of  ways  and  means  to  apply  them  in  the  world 
of  today;  second,  education  about  science — factual  education  to  bring 
the  things  that  we  must  now  live  with  into  the  orbit  of  understanding, 
of  familiarity,  of  non-magic  and  non-hysteria,  but,  in  addition  to  factual 
education,  education  as  to  the  nature  and  method  of  science,  the  type 
of  training  James  B.  Conant  has  stressed;  and  third,  education  about 


EDUCATION   FOR   SURVIVAL  95 

education — a  more  clear-cut  and  less  fuzzy  appreciation  of  our  vital 
dependence  on  education  (we  know  we  are  dependent  but  why  and 
how  far?)  and  an  increased  understanding  of  the  fact  that  education 
to  serve  freedom  must  have  freedom. 

The  importance  of  education  for  democracy  was  emphasized 
recently  by  a  distinguished  recruit  to  the  corps  of  professional  educa- 
tors, Dwight  D.  Eisenhower.  He  stressed  "love  of  freedom,  confidence 
in  the  efficacy  of  co-operative  effort,  optimism  for  the  future,  [and] 
invincible  conviction  that  the  American  way  of  life  yields  the  greatest 
human  values."  He  suggested  that  the  way  to  gain  such  ends  is  "to 
help  the  student  build  these  attitudes  not  out  of  indoctrination,  but 
out  of  genuine  understanding." 

The  ultimate  test  of  the  adequacy  of  education  is  the  degree  of 
success  attained  in  making  people  want  to  understand  and  capable 
of  understanding  relationships.  The  real  goal  of  teaching  and  training 
and  acquiring  more  knowledge  requires  that  education  be  regarded  as 
integral — the  opposite  of  more  and  more  compartmentaUzation  to 
produce  more  and  more  specialized  competencies.  If  I  am  saying  in 
other  words  what  Robert  L.  Stearns  said  a  moment  ago,  fine.  I  have 
come  to  the  same  conclusion  through  another  approach.  Integral  edu- 
cation means  to  me  that  mathematics,  for  example,  is  not  well  pursued 
unless  its  function  as  a  tool  and  key  is  emphasized  continuously  from 
the  start;  that  history  is  not  well  studied  unless  it  is  realistically  related 
to  the  present;  that  the  natural  sciences  are  not  mastered  without  con- 
sideration of  their  implications  for  man;  and  so  on  through  the  varied 
subjects.  In  the  end,  the  proper  study  of  mankind  really  is  man — man, 
his  aspirations,  his  works,  and  his  problems.  Higher  education  must 
mean  both  altitude  and  horizon. 

I  do  not  consider  that  what  I  have  said  is  opposed  to  specialization. 
I  consider  it  to  be  specialization  plus — the  plus  being  deliberately 
exalted  as  the  integrator  without  which  we  have  only  strength  without 
purpose,  which  is  in  the  end  not  strength  at  all. 

FINALLY,  since  I  speak  from  a  standpoint  of  strange  and  new  con- 
cerns (which  I  insist  are  related  to  the  deepest  of  our  concerns) 
and  since  I  speak  at  a  particular  university  whose  jubilee  we  celebrate 
and  whose  forward  look  we  applaud,  I  dare  to  suggest  one  particular 


^6  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

opportunity  that  may  be  related  to  the  words  of  President  Bevis  with 
which  I  started. 

The  Ohio  State  University  is  one  of  thirty  major  educational 
institutions  in  the  Argonne  National  Laboratory  group.  The  Argonne 
National  Laboratory — an  atomic-energy  laboratory — has  a  dual  mission 
which  is  very  important  to  the  nation.  Its  specific  mission  is  largely 
secret  research  and  development  of  nuclear  reactors.  Its  much  broader 
purpose  of  mobilizing  the  universities  behind  it  is  not  only  to  strengthen 
the  laboratory  for  its  work  but  also  to  strengthen  the  universities  for 
theirs.  The  values,  short-run  and  long-run,  to  our  national  strength  are 
obvious — and  I  mean  national  strength  for  whatever  purposes,  espe- 
cially for  peaceful  ones.  There  are  great  potentials  in  the  very  fact  that 
the  educational  institutions  of  the  Argonne  group  are  educational 
institutions. 

One  hears  much  about  various  kinds  of  "know-how"  important 
to  our  strength  and  survival.  There  is  educational  "know-how"  too, 
whose  appHcation  is  essential  all  along  the  Une,  all  across  the  front; 
and,  for  anything  beyond  the  shortest  pull,  more  basic  and  important 
than  any  other  type  of  knowledge.  May  there  not  wisely  be  vigorous 
exploration  of  the  ways  in  which  the  thirty  universities,  profiting  by 
their  association,  may  put  all  of  that  educational  know-how  to  use  to 
create  the  foundations  of  understanding  that  are  the  foundations  of 
American  strength,  which  in  turn  is  a  foundation  of  effective  Amer- 
ican moral  purpose  in  the  world  .f* 


THE  THIRD  CONFERENCE 

Chairman: 

Gordon  Keith  Chalmers,  President,  Kenyon  College 

Spea}{ers: 

Mildred  McAfee  Horton,  President,  Wellesley  College 
Reinhold  Niebuhr,  Professor  of  Applied  Chrisianity,  Union 
Theological  Seminary 


OPENING  REMARKS 

By  Gordon  Keith  Chalmers 

1HAVE  the  welcome  duty  at  this  session  of  the  seventy-fifth  anniver- 
sary celebration  to  bring  to  The  Ohio  State  University  the  greet- 
ings of  the  Association  of  American  Colleges,  of  which  this  uni- 
versity is  a  member,  and  to  add  the  greetings  of  your  neighbor,  Ken- 
yon  College. 

This  session  of  the  program  is  devoted,  as  you  see  by  the  titles  of 
the  addresses,  to  the  general  subject  of  religion  and  human  affairs.  We 
are  to  hear  two  addresses,  the  first  by  one  who  is  unquestionably  a 
leader  in  educational  thought  and  practice  in  this  decade — Mildred 
McAfee  Horton,  President  of  Wellesley  College.  During  the  war,  as 
director  of  the  WAVES,  she  was  awarded  the  distinguished  service 
medal,  and  the  rank  of  Captain  by  the  Navy.  Mrs.  Horton  was  one 
of  the  American  representatives  sent  by  the  State  Department  to  the 
Far  East  to  advise  the  occupation  government  concerning  the  recon- 
struction of  education  in  Japan.  She  is  a  member  of  numerous  guiding 
groups  concerned  with  American  education,  notably  American  higher 
education.  In  many  ways,  by  example  in  her  own  institution  and  by 
emphasis  in  educational  discussion,  she  has  accomplished  an  important 
task  in  this  middle  part  of  the  century.  This  is  a  time  when  the  meas- 
urement of  externals  has  engaged  the  attention  and  the  talents  of  the 
talented.  When  the  measurement  of  externals  has  displaced  the  judg- 
ment of  value,  Mrs.  Horton  has  been  one  of  those  who  helped  to  focus 
attention  upon  the  inward  meaning  of  what  is  taught  and  of  what  is 
sought  in  inquiry.  She  will  speak  to  us  on  the  subject  "Living  with 
our  Human  Relations." 

The  second  speaker  of  this  afternoon's  meeting  is  Reinhold  Nie- 
buhr.  Professor  of  Applied  Christianity  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary.  He  has  for  many  years,  by  action  as  well  as  by  precept, 
been  engaged  in  the  defense  and  the  exposition  of  genuine  liberahsm. 
He  and  some  of  his  discerning  and  courageous  colleagues  have  been 
responsible  for  rescuing  from  Fascist  oppression  some  of  the  strongest 
and  most  fruitful  liberals  of  our  time.  Like  President  Horton,  he  also 

98 


OPENING   REMARKS  99 

has  been  engaged  in  a  mission  for  our  State  Department.  He  has  been 
in  Germany,  working  with  the  re-establishment  and  reconstruction  of 
higher  education  in  the  occupied  territory.  One  might  introduce  Pro- 
fessor Niebuhr  in  any  one  of  several  guises.  One  might  take  the  phrase 
from  one  of  his  early  books  and  introduce  him  as  a  tamed  cynic.  One 
might  recognize  him  as  a  member  of  that  bright  succession,  particu- 
larly numerous  in  the  seventeenth  century  and  regrettably  few  in  the 
twentieth,  of  discerning  minds  who  love  a  paradox.  One  might  intro- 
duce him  as  a  member  of  that  distinguished  succession  of  Americans 
who  have  delivered  the  Giflord  Lectures — the  list  includes  William 
James  and  Josiah  Royce.  His  own  Giflord  Lectures  published  in  two 
volumes,  The  Nature  and  Destiny  of  Man,  and  another  of  his  works, 
Moral  Man  and  Immoral  Society,  unquestionably  place  him  among  the 
significant  theological  and  humane  thinkers  of  our  time.  Many  have 
disagreed  with  him;  some  in  anger.  All,  I  believe,  who  read  him  with 
care  and  who  are  qualified  to  deal  with  the  questions  with  which  he 
deals  are  prepared  to  say,  whether  they  agree  with  his  conclusions  or 
not,  that  he  has  undoubtedly  asked  the  right  questions  for  our  period. 
To  say  that  is  to  say  that  he  conforms  to  Socrates'  definition  of  the  wise 
man — he  who  asks  the  right  questions  of  nature.  Professor  Niebuhr 
undoubtedly  has  been  asking  the  right  questions  of  experience  as  we 
see  it;  and  his  voice  is  one  of  the  few  which  speak  to  the  age.  His 
subject  this  afternoon  will  be  "Our  Pilgrimage  from  a  Century  of 
Hope  to  a  Century  of  Perplexity." 


LIVING  WITH  OUR  HUMAN  RELATIONS 
By  Mildred  McAfee  Horton 

I  WISH  to  take  just  one  moment  of  your  time  to  bring  greetings  to 
this  great  University  from  Wellesley  College,  which  has  paid  you 
the  perfect  tribute  of  imitation.  We  waited  for  two  years  after  The 
Ohio  State  University  was  started  to  see  if  it  was  a  good  idea  to  have 
higher  education;  then  Wellesley  was  founded. 

The  only  thing  harder  than  Hving  with  our  human  relations  is 
living  without  them.  The  soUtary  man  or  woman  is  not  fully  human, 
but  we  do  not  need  to  worry  much  about  that  because  it  is  practically 
impossible  for  anybody  to  survive  in  a  truly  solitary  state.  Human 
relations  are  inevitable  facts  of  human  experience,  and  it  seems  strange 
that  out  of  our  necessity  we  should  have  invented  so  little  to  make 
them  an  asset  rather  than  a  liability. 

It  is  worth  taking  a  minute  to  ponder  why  human  relations  in  the 
modern  world  are  so  problematic.  Why  is  it  so  difficult  for  people  to 
get  along  with  each  other  when  they  clearly  cannot  get  along  without 
each  other? 

My  too  simple  answer  to  that  pretty  profound  question  is  that 
fundamentally  "all  men  are  brothers"  and  are  sufficiently  aUke  to  expect 
more  unanimity  than  they  actually  have.  There  is  a  family  resem- 
blance among  men  of  all  cultures,  and  we  are  prone  to  expect  from 
them  action  which  is  both  comprehensible  and  similar  to  our  own. 
When  we  do  not  find  our  purposes  served  by  men  who  ought  to  know 
better,  we  resent  them  and  seek  to  "put  them  in  their  place,"  which 
really  means  to  keep  them  out  of  our  way. 

At  the  risk  of  straining  a  figure  of  speech,  I  want  to  emphasize  the 
fact  that  it  is  the  actual  brotherhood  of  man,  the  realistic  family  resem- 
blance, which  makes  it  so  difficult  to  exhibit  the  kind  of  brotherly 
human  relations  which  most  of  us  in  this  room  would  recommend  as 
appropriate  in  an  enlightened  age. 

If  we  did  not  belong  in  the  same  human  family,  it  would  seem  to 
be  relatively  easy  to  work  out  a  formula  for  getting  along  on  different 
planes  of  human  experience,  mutually  irresponsible.   We  are  increas- 


OUR    HUMAN    RELATIONS  lOI 

ingly  aware  of  the  fact  that  we  cannot — even  if  we  want  to — ignore 
the  bond  which  ties  us  all  up  in  one  all-embracing  human  relationship. 

I  have  referred  to  that  relationship  as  brotherhood,  and  by  that 
term  I  indicate  my  starting  point  and  my  initial  prejudice.  I  proceed 
with  my  argument  from  the  premise  that  the  relationship  between  men 
is  a  personahzed  one,  that  we  are  not  automata  nor  units  in  a  deper- 
sonaHzed  cosmic  process. 

During  this  past  summer  I  had  the  unusual  opportunity  of  attend- 
ing the  first  Assembly  of  the  World  Council  of  Churches.  On  one 
occasion  at  that  assembly  I  heard  a  moving  address  by  Bishop  Berggrav 
of  Norway  which  began  with  a  statement  of  this  assumption  of  the 
personahzed  relationships,  that  I  should  like  to  quote.  I  do  not  expect 
all  of  you  to  agree  with  his  position,  but  you  will  need  to  understand 
it  before  you  can  follow  me  the  rest  of  the  way. 

The  cornerstone  document  of  humanity  from  1776  speaks  about  the 
Rights  of  man,  endowed  upon  him  by  his  Creator.  Quite  differently  reads 
article  I  in  the  lately  proposed  Declaration  of  the  United  Nations  1948: 

"All  men  are  born  free  and  equal  in  dignity  and  rights.  They  are  en- 
dowed by  nature  with  reason  and  conscience  and  should  act  towards  one 
another  like  brothers." 

"Endowed  by  the  Creator"  here  has  been  supplanted  by  "endowed  by 
nature."  The  Creator  is  dropped,  Nature  enthroned.  There  you  have  the 
difference.  You  may  test  the  reach  of  it,  if  you  compare  the  appeal  in- 
cluded in  calling  upon  a  man  or  a  nation,  saying:  "You  are  responsible 
towards  your  Creator"  with  "You  are  responsible  towards  your  nature — or 
towards  Nature."  When  God  is  left  out,  nature  becomes  master.  ...  If  the 
only  stronghold  of  human  rights  is  that  they  have  been  endowed  upon  us 
by  nature,  then  the  human  rights  are  delivered  at  the  mercy  of  certain 
human  instincts,  and  of  those  exploiting  them.  These  instincts  and  their 
exploiters  will  ravage  societies  and  nations.  As  the  only  possible  liberation 
from  these  forces,  the  Christian  witness  sounds:  There  is  a  living  God! 
Your  responsibility  is  towards  your  Creator! 

The  problem  of  human  relations  is  not  that  men  "should  act 
towards  one  another  like  brothers."  It  is  that  men  cannot  help  being 
brothers,  and  injury  to  another  human  being  is  injury  to  one's  own. 
That  is  why  injustice  and  the  violation  of  human  rights  are  so  bitter 


102  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

and  so  debilitating  to  a  society,  to  any  society  in  any  economic  system. 
They  are  perversions,  abnormalities,  blights  on  the  health  of  the  body 
pohtic. 

SINCE  human  beings  have  so  much  in  common  it  is  peculiarly  diffi- 
cult to  sympathize  with  their  differences.  A  Dutch  child  tried  to 
talk  to  me  this  summer.  It  was  positively  disheartening  to  watch  the 
growing  disillusionment  as  the  youngster  gradually  realized  that  this 
creature  who  looked  like  a  human  being  was  so  unutterably  stupid  that 
communication  was  impossible  in  human,  namely  Dutch,  language. 

Some  years  ago  I  made  my  first  visit  to  Japan.  During  my  stay  of 
sixteen  days  I  gave  excellent  advice  on  how  to  democratize  Japanese 
education.  The  effectiveness  of  the  advice  is  certainly  to  be  questioned 
but  not  the  educational  value  of  the  visit  for  me.  One  of  the  very 
enhghtening  experiences  was  to  learn  from  a  Japanese  statesman  that 
Japanese  men  held  their  wives  in  such  respect  that  they  left  the  entire 
household  management  to  them  and  thus  occupied  them  in  such 
important  matters  that  they  did  not  have  time  to  gad  around  like 
American  women.  Imagine  my  personal  embarrassment  at  that  mo- 
ment. It  was  even  more  enlightening  because  it  was  more  surprising 
to  me,  to  learn  from  a  French  woman  this  summer  that  continental 
women  hoped  that  international  organizations  would  not  exert  such 
influence  in  France  that  the  backward  social  position  of  women  in 
America  would  be  imposed  on  them.  She  explained  that  French 
women  do  not  have  to  have  things  like  women's  clubs,  women's  organ- 
izations— she  might  have  added  women's  colleges — because  they  exert 
influence  directly  on  public  and  private  affairs.  They  might  not  hold 
office  (though  she  thought  they  held  a  good  many  more  than  Amer- 
ican women  do)  but  they  knew  they  exerted  direct  influence  on  any 
man  who  held  any  office,  and  they  prefer  it  that  way. 

In  one  section  meeting  at  the  World  Council  of  Churches,  a 
memorandum  was  under  discussion  which  called  for  a  statement  by 
the  delegates  to  the  effect  that  they  believed  in  defending  human  rights 
and  demanding  them  for  all  men  everywhere.  A  delegate  from  Czecho- 
slovakia who  had  been  trying  to  explain  what  he  called  the  "Eastern 
point  of  view"  said  that  such  a  statement  would  surely  have  the 


OUR   HUMAN   RELATIONS 


103 


approval  of  thoughtful  people  on  either  side  of  the  iron  curtain,  but 
that  it  would  not  mean  in  the  East  what  it  means  in  the  West.  In  the 
East  it  would  mean  the  right  to  have  food  and  shelter — economic 
justice.  In  the  West  it  would  mean  the  right  of  freedom  in  general. 
Saying  that  all  men  should  have  their  inalienable  human  rights  meant 
nothing  until  it  was  agreed  what  those  rights  are  and  the  order  of 
their  importance.  All  of  which  sounds  Uke  the  mutually  exclusive 
definitions  of  democracy  which  are  so  irritating  because  they  use  the 
same  terms  with  diametrically  different  meanings. 

Human  beings  who  act  ahke  and  then  put  radically  dififerent 
meanings  to  their  actions  are  confusing  to  each  other.  If  American 
men  keep  women  at  home,  sit  at  table  with  their  guests,  and  allow 
their  wives  to  appear  only  as  waitresses  bringing  food  from  the  stove, 
it  does  not  mean  what  my  Japanese  friend  said  it  meant  in  Japan. 
Women's  club  activity  does  not  mean  in  America  what  my  French 
informant  thinks  it  means.  Until  you  know  what  the  other  person 
means  by  his  action  you  have  to  assume  he  means  what  you  would 
mean  if  you  did  what  he  is  doing.  When  you  treat  him  as  he  should 
be  treated  if  he  were  doing  what  you  think  he  is  doing,  he  is  perplexed 
or  infuriated;  then  you  are  perplexed  or  infuriated  and  human  rela- 
tions are  definitely  strained. 

IN  ORDER  to  complicate  things  further  we  are  so  bound  in  this  family 
relationship  that  we  seem  to  assume  that  the  more  closely  people 
resemble  each  other  in  some  traits,  the  more  intimately  related  they 
are  and  the  more  they  can  be  assumed  to  be  similar  in  all  ways.  How 
else  can  we  rationalize  the  categories  into  which  we  put  people: 
women,  Jews,  Negroes,  foreigners.  Catholics,  Protestants,  Russians, 
university  graduates,  and  so  on?  Statistically  any  recognizable  group 
can  be  treated  as  a  unit  and  can  be  described  in  a  category.  It  is  a 
convenient  device,  useful  in  conducting  Gallup  polls,  practically  helpful 
in  many  ways.  It  is  logically  indefensible,  however,  to  assume  that  any 
one  unit  of  the  sample  is  typical  of  all  the  rest  unless  the  sample  has 
been  made  up  originally  of  identical  units.  I  am  not  sure  I  am  stating 
that  to  the  satisfaction  of  my  statistician  friends,  but  I  think  you  all 
know  what  I  mean. 


104  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

I  personally  get  very  much  bored  with  the  idea  that  having  one 
woman  on  the  board  of  directors  of  an  organization  means  that  all 
women  are  thereby  represented.  The  importance  of  the  election  this 
summer  of  Margaret  Chase  Smith  to  the  Senate  is  not  that  at  last 
women  will  be  given  a  fair  deal  by  having  a  Republican  spokesman 
on  the  spot  to  represent  them  in  the  Senate.  The  election  is  significant 
as  demonstrating  that  the  state  of  Maine  knows  a  good  senator  when 
it  sees  one  and  is  not  prevented  from  sending  that  senator  to  Wash- 
ington because  the  senator  happens  to  be  a  woman. 

The  reasons,  it  seems  to  me,  for  requiring  that  minority  groups 
be  directly  represented  in  civic  and  other  affairs  are  (i)  that  we  need 
to  learn  that  minority  groups  are  not  made  up  of  uniform  units  and 
(2)  that  individual  members  of  these  groups  who  have  contributions 
to  make  to  the  common  purposes  of  both  majorities  and  minorities  can 
all  too  easily  be  overlooked  unless  their  contributions  are  specifically 
sought.  Having  a  representative  of  a  minority  group  will  soon  show 
you  that  the  person  has  a  mind  of  his  or  her  own  and  does  not  repre- 
sent the  thinking  of  a  great  composite  group.  When  human  relations 
are  what  they  ought  to  be,  I  think  that  no  group  will  have  to  insist 
that  one  of  its  members  must  be  "on  the  inside"  in  order  to  have  the 
group  interests  safeguarded.  But  until  then  it  is  a  good  idea  to  be  sure 
that  minority  groups  are  consciously  represented  when  matters  con- 
cerning them  are  under  discussion. 

If  we  would  improve  human  relations,  then,  we  must  first  come 
to  know  each  other  better — and  thus  understand  the  meaning  of  the 
actions  of  people  superficially  like  but  culturally  unlike  ourselves — 
and,  in  the  second  place,  we  must  learn  to  avoid  judging  individual 
members  of  statistical  groups  as  identical  with  all  the  other  members 
of  their  category.  Some  little  girls  are  nice  and  some  are  horrid.  So 
are  their  parents.  Some  Republicans  are  smart  and  some  are  not.  So 
are  Democrats.  Dare  I  say,  so  are  Progressives  and  Communists  and 
vegetarians  and  Socialists  and  all  the  rest? 

FACED  with  the  confusions  of  human  relations  between  individuals, 
we  find  it  easy  to  forget  how  human  relations  are  complicated 
further  by  the  institutions  which  men  build  to  deal  with  them.   All 


OUR   HUMAN   RELATIONS  105 

over  the  world,  in  all  cultures,  men  get  together  to  accomplish  com- 
mon purposes.  The  organizations  that  they  construct  as  means  to  those 
ends  normally  include  some  which  develop  into  established  institutions 
which  become  for  at  least  some  of  their  adherents  vital  means  to 
the  end.  We  have  a  state  to  perform  governmental  functions.  We 
have  churches  as  agencies  for  expressing  our  religious  interests. 
We  have  schools  for  obvious  purposes.  We,  the  people,  direct  them  all, 
but  presently  we  discover  that  they  begin  to  encroach  on  each  other. 

Then  we  find  ourselves  in  the  curious  condition  of  building  iron 
or  other  kinds  of  hard  and  fast  curtains  between  institutions  even  when 
the  same  people  belong  to  the  same  institutions  and  use  them  to  solve 
identical  problems.  Take  church  and  state,  for  instance.  Each  institu- 
tion is  responsible  for  the  children  of  a  community  and,  however 
separate  the  church  and  state,  the  child  they  each  claim  is  not  divided 
into  separate  selves,  one  for  the  church  and  one  for  the  school,  or  if 
he  is,  he  is  no  credit  to  either  institution.  Thus,  however  zealously  we 
guard  the  idea  of  separation  of  church  and  state,  we  cannot  avoid  the 
fact  that  their  fields  of  influence  are  not  mutually  exclusive.  History 
has  shown  the  fallacy  of  having  political  states  dominated  by  ecclesias- 
tical authorities.  Recent  years  have  certainly  revealed  the  tragic  results 
of  the  domination  by  an  irreligious  state  of  a  subordinate  church.  But 
both  institutions  are  concerned  with  the  education  of  youth. 

In  our  zeal  to  avoid  encroachments  by  one  agency  on  the  rights  of 
another,  we  run  the  risk  of  assuming  in  this  country  that  the  church 
must  accept  no  responsibility  for  citizenship  and  that  the  state  must 
renounce  any  responsibility  for  assuring  children  a  chance  to  live  in 
terms  of  religious  beliefs.  If  we  reach  this  conclusion  we  divorce  each 
institution  from  life  as  it  is  actually  lived. 

Many  of  us  have  been  interested  in  the  Supreme  Court  decision 
declaring  it  unconstitutional  for  the  School  Board  of  Champaign,  Illi- 
nois, to  conduct  its  so-called  "released-time"  program  for  religious  edu- 
cation. The  Court  has  been  expHcit  in  saying  that  its  ruling  in  the 
Champaign  case  has  not  determined  the  validity  of  released-time  pro- 
grams in  general.  It  has  certainly  made  it  likely,  however,  that  no 
program  can  be  freed  from  the  suspicion  of  unconstitutionality  if  it 
involves  using  school  buildings  during  customary  school  hours  for 


I06  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

classes  in  religion  at  which  attendance  is  reported  by  a  visiting  teacher 
to  the  child's  regular  school  teacher. 

But  even  where  they  have  seemed  to  be  clearly  within  the  law, 
released-time  projects  have  been  criticized  on  the  score  that  dividing  a 
school  into  religious  groupings  for  the  purpose  of  religious  education 
creates  divisiveness  in  the  school.  Children  now  discover  which  are 
Catholics,  Protestants,  Jews,  and,  so  the  argument  goes,  the  knowledge 
prevents  their  accepting  each  other  as  fellow  citizens.  If  this  is  true  it 
is  a  terrible  fact  in  a  country  dedicated  to  freedom.  If  a  child  is  not 
free  to  be  different  from  a  dominant  group  without  being  the  victim 
of  ridicule,  intolerance,  or  persecution,  where  are  our  vaunted  liberties.'* 

Mrs.  Eugene  Myer,  for  whom  I  have  vast  respect,  speaking  last 
winter  before  the  Annual  Convention  of  the  Texas  State  Teachers 
Association,  argued  against  the  released-time  program  for  a  variety  of 
reasons.  She  has  been  quoted  as  saying:  "Lining  up  of  the  different 
denominations  makes  for  divisiveness.  In  one  school  when  the  Cath- 
olic children  were  leaving,  others  shouted:  'There  go  those  Micks!'  A 
nice  democratic  atmosphere!"^ 

Well,  it  is  clearly  not  a  nice  democratic  atmosphere,  but  I  wonder 
if  that  episode  does  not  present  an  important  opportunity  for  education 
in  understanding.  If  children  treat  representatives  of  other  faiths 
derisively,  I  wonder  if  the  school  is  not  a  pretty  good  place  to  bring 
that  fact  out  into  the  open  where  it  can  be  dealt  with  educatively. 
School  would  seem  to  be  a  good  place  to  learn  to  recognize  religious 
differences  as  facts.  An  American  who  taunted  a  foreigner  in  school 
would  presumably  be  taught  then  and  there  that  such  action  is 
unworthy  of  an  American.  Ridiculing  children  for  different  faiths  is 
un-American.  Occurring  in  situations  divorced  from  the  school,  it 
might  pass  unchallenged.  It  should  never  pass  unchallenged  in  the 
school.  Teaching  children  to  respect  each  other's  differences  cannot  be 
taught  best  by  concealing  the  fact  that  there  are  differences  among  them. 

American  public  schools  are  parts  of  a  national  culture  which 
includes  a  recognition  of  the  existence  of  God.  After  all,  the  most 
secular  of  economic  units,  our  coins,  carry  the  slogan,  "In  God  we 
trust" — even  during  inflation.  Without  infringing  on  freedom  of  con- 

^  Meyer,  Agnes  E.  "Shall  the  Churches  Invade  the  Schools?"  Reader's  Digest,  Lll 
(March,  1948;,  p.  67. 


OUR    HUMAN    RELATIONS  IO7 

science  and  without  involving  commitment  to  any  theological  or 
ecclesiastical  doctrines,  dinner  guests,  legislators,  delegates  to  varieties 
of  assembly  are  led  in  simple  prayer.  That  is  a  custom  in  the  secular 
realm  which  is  a  recognition  of  the  religious  tradition  which  differ- 
entiates this  country  from  certain  others.  To  require  religious  practices 
of  any  sort  in  a  public  school  seems  to  me  unwise.  To  permit  them 
under  the  auspices  of  the  school  itself  in  communities  which  want 
them  seems  to  me  reasonable  in  a  land  with  our  particular  heritage. 

However,  where  schools  could  help  to  make  students  aware  of  the 
vital  significance  of  spiritual  values,  one  wishes  they  could  be  free  to  do 
so  without  seeming  to  encroach  on  church  territory  or  be  themselves 
threatened  by  encroachment.  There  are  too  many  demands  on  man's 
energy  these  days  to  waste  it  on  jurisdictional  disputes  among  agencies 
which  share  common  purposes. 

That  the  schools  are  not  encouraged  to  help  in  this  area  is  evident 
in  too  many  communities.  Why?  The  basic  reason  is  that  religious 
men  and  women  are  fearful  of  each  other  and  of  sectarianism,  almost 
more  than  they  fear  secularization  of  an  erstwhile  spiritually  sensitive 
society;  secularists  are  fearful  of  religion  and  its  power  to  alter  lives 
and  society. 

Bigotry  and  proselytism  explain  that  sensitivity  and  will  act  as 
irritants  as  long  as  they  are  allowed  to  exist.  It  is  these  characteristics 
of  religionists  and  secularists  which  make  it  difficult  to  use  the  schools 
fully  and  adequately  as  instruments  together  with  church  and  family 
for  the  introduction  of  children  to  the  rehgious  institutions  of  their 
communities.  It  is  the  task  of  the  school  and  the  church  to  educate  our 
citizenry  away  from  such  attitudes. 

AND  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  seventy-fifth  anniversary  of  a 
great  university?  Chiefly  this:  A  university  is  one  of  the  great 
institutions  in  American  life  which  is  equipped  to  contribute  directly 
to  the  understanding  of  these  complexities  of  human  relations.  If  it  be 
true  that  our  basic  common  humanity  is  one  of  the  reasons  for  the 
complications  in  our  human  relations,  a  university  which  helps  us  to 
understand  that  common  human  nature  is  contributing  to  a  compre- 
hension of  our  relationships  which  we  now  lack. 

A  university  which  brings  to  a  common  center  representatives  of 


I08  SEVENTY -FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

cultures  from  all  parts  of  the  world  serves  not  only  as  a  laboratory  for 
the  discovery  of  facts  about  human  nature,  but  as  a  great  demonstration 
of  the  possibility  of  good  relations  between  people  of  different  cultures. 
The  meeting  here  of  young  people  of  a  variety  of  nationaUties,  of  dif- 
ferent language  groups,  makes  it  possible  for  them  to  return  to  their 
home  countries  as  emissaries  of  understanding.  As  they  bring  to 
America  the  opportunity  to  know  individuals  as  persons  rather  than 
as  queer  strangers,  these  foreign  students  gathering  in  a  great  university 
contribute  immeasurably  to  the  possibility  of  good  human  relations. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  National  Commission  on  Unesco  in  Boston 
last  month,  Archibald  MacLeish  made  the  teUing  observation  that  it  is 
not  the  ideologies  of  the  world  which  divide  men.  Rather  it  is  the 
loss  of  the  sense  of  human  community.  Surely  a  great  university, 
attracting  to  its  classrooms  and  laboratories  men  and  women  from 
around  the  world,  is  in  a  uniquely  favored  position  to  recreate  for  its 
students  that  sense  of  human  community  which  this  tired,  mechan- 
ically dominated  world  so  sorely  needs. 

Within  these  classrooms  and  on  this  campus  a  generation  of 
students  each  year  learns  how  to  think  its  way  through  the  totalitarian 
assumption  of  categories  of  people  into  an  awareness  of  the  individ- 
uality of  members  of  social  categories.  We  all  know  that  some  people 
go  through  their  academic  experience  immune  to  the  democratizing 
influence  of  a  great  opportunity  and  of  acquaintance  with  people  of 
types  different  from  their  own.  It  is  true  that  some  groups  within  any 
university  emerge  with  snobbish  attitudes  toward  other  groups,  but 
by  and  large  they  are  not  the  representatives  of  the  true  university 
spirit.  They  are  the  men  and  women  who  have  failed  to  profit  by 
what  the  great  university  has  to  offer  them. 

In  addition  to  what  the  university  can  teach  its  individual  students 
about  human  relations,  it  serves  in  its  institutional  capacity  as  a  great 
social  factor  in  demonstrating  the  possibility  of  co-operation  with  other 
institutions  in  the  improvement  of  the  community  of  which  it  is  a  part. 
In  the  great  struggle  for  academic  freedom  the  state  university  is  in  a 
strategic  position  to  demonstrate  the  academic  responsibility  of  a  place 
of  learning.  This  university  cannot  live  without  co-operation  with  the 
state.  When  I  think  of  the  struggle  that  Wellesley  is  having  to  raise 


OUR   HUMAN   RELATIONS 


109 


seven  and  one-half  million  dollars  and  then  hear  what  your  legislature 
does  for  you,  I  realize  the  importance  of  your  co-operation  with  your 
state.  You  make  no  effort  to  live  without  co-operation  with  the  church. 
A  great  institution  Hke  this  is  bound  close  to  the  family  of  citizens  of 
this  great  state.  Thus  higher  education  or  the  institutions  which  foster 
it  are  united  with  the  other  agencies  of  the  community  to  work  to- 
gether in  a  pattern  of  human  relations  which  can  set  an  example  for 
other  institutional  relationships. 

I  want  to  close  with  a  few  lines  which  were  written  by  the  late 
president  emeritus  of  the  University  of  Kentucky,  Frank  McVey,  who 
asked,  What  is  a  university.'' 

What  is  a  university? 

A  university  is  a  place; 

It  is  a  spirit: 

It  is  men  of  learning, 

A  collection  of  books, 

Laboratories  where  work  in  science  goes  forward; 

It  is  the  source  of  the  teaching 

Of  the  beauties  of  literature  and  the  arts; 

It  is  the  center  where  ambitious  youth  gathers  to  learn; 

It  protects  the  traditions, 

Honors  the  new  and  tests  its  value; 

It  believes  in  truth. 

Protests  against  error, 

And  leads  men  by  reason 

Rather  than  by  force." 

'A  University  Is  a  Place  ...  a  Spirit:  Addresses  and  Articles  by  Frank.  Le  Rond 
McVey,  President,  University  of  Kentucky,  1917-1940.  Collected  and  Arranged  by  Fran- 
ces Jewell  McVey.   Lexington,  Kentucky:  University  of  Kentucky  Press,  1944.   p.  6. 


OUR  SPIRITUAL  PILGRIMAGE  FROM  A  CENTURY  OF 
HOPE  TO  A  CENTURY  OF  PERPLEXITY 

By  Reinhold  Niebuhr 

THE  life  span  of  this  great  university,  whose  seventy-fifth  anni- 
versary we  are  celebrating,  encompasses  as  significant  a  period 
of  human  history  as  has  ever  unrolled  in  the  sad  and  majestic 
drama  of  the  human  race.  The  date  of  its  birth  coincides  almost  exactly 
with  the  beginning  of  the  last  quarter  century  of  what  F.  S.  Marvin  has 
rightly  called  T/ie  Century  of  Hope.  It  was  the  last  period  in  the  life 
of  modern  mankind  which  had  no  misgivings  about  our  civilization 
and  no  qualms  or  doubts  about  the  progress  of  man  onward  and  up- 
ward forever.  That  last  quarter  century  managed  to  gather  together 
all  the  hopeful  and  encouraging  aspects  of  the  human  situation  which 
the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries  had  explicated  and  to  express 
the  mood  of  modernity  in  one  grand  hymn  of  triumph. 

The  general  optimism  of  our  culture  was  accentuated  in  America 
and  more  particularly  in  the  Middle  West  because  the  final  half  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  the  Civil  War  having  guaranteed  the  continued 
unity  of  our  nation,  witnessed  a  marvelous  expansion  of  every  aspect 
of  American  power  and  culture.  We  were  accomplishing  what  no 
other  nation  had  had  the  chance  to  accomplish,  the  creation  of  a  vast 
continental  economy  and  a  political  unity  of  peoples  gathered  from 
every  part  of  the  European  world.  We  achieved  a  new  meaning  for 
democracy  as  the  wide  open  spaces  of  our  advancing  frontier  broke 
the  power  of  the  European  caste  system  and  established  a  system  of 
social  equality  and  free  opportunity.  We  brought  races,  hitherto  in 
conflict,  into  a  new  concord  as  European  immigrants  co-operated  in 
building  this  mighty  nation.  We  achieved  a  standard  of  physical  well- 
being  not  known  before  as  we  began  to  exploit  with  a  single-minded 
devotion,  the  remarkable  natural  resources  of  this  continent  by  the 
development  of  techniques  which  the  more  static  civilizations  of 
Europe  could  not  equal  or  understand. 

The  nineteenth  century  was  the  century  of  hope,  and  our  nation 
was  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  bearer  of  that  hope.  The  nineteenth  century 


OUR   PILGRIMAGE   FROM    HOPE   TO   PERPLEXITY  III 

as  spiritual  history  came  to  an  end  not  in  1900  but  in  1914.  That  was 
the  date  when  world  history  began  to  refute  some  of  the  interpretations 
of  life  and  history  in  which  the  nineteenth  century  most  fervently 
believed.  Even  then,  the  historic  circumstances  which  gave  the  creeds 
of  that  century  their  power  and  plausibility  persisted  to  such  a  degree 
in  our  own  nation  that  the  creeds  were  not  seriously  shattered  here, 
even  though  European  culture  was  basically  affected  by  the  tragic 
events  which  began  in  1914.  With  us,  all  the  characteristic  presupposi- 
tions of  the  century  of  hope  persisted  until  the  second,  rather  than  the 
first.  World  War.  We  now  have  the  task  of  reorienting  our  culture 
while  we  are  in  the  throes  of  preserving  a  democratic  civilization  which 
is  involved  in  a  deep  crisis  and  exposed  to  terrible  perils. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  review  the  whole  course  of  the  spiritual 
pilgrimage  from  a  century  of  hope  to  a  century  of  perplexity.  Let  us 
confine  ourselves,  therefore,  to  those  aspects  which  have  an  immediate 
and  obvious  effect  upon  the  task  of  higher  education;  and  more  par- 
ticularly to  the  so-called  "spiritual"  values  which  are  implicit  in  our 
educational  program.  Let  us  survey  some  of  the  characteristic  creeds 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  their  refutation  in  contemporary  history, 
and  the  task  with  which  we  are  confronted  by  this  refutation. 

THE  most  basic  of  all  nineteenth  century  beliefs  was  its  confidence 
in  history  itself,  its  belief  that  historical  development  represented 
a  progressive  solution  of  the  human  predicament  and  offered  emancipa- 
tion from  human  ills.  Everything  in  the  history  of  culture  in  the  past 
two  hundred  years  served  to  give  power  and  plausibiUty  to  the  idea 
that  there  was  nothing  wrong  with  man  which  history  (that  is  to  say 
the  historical  growth  of  human  power  and  freedom)  would  not  cure. 
The  historical  sciences  had  proved  irrefutably  that  human  institutions, 
and  possibly  also  human  capacities,  were  subject  to  indeterminate 
growth.  The  natural  sciences  had  added  the  discovery  of  the  mutation 
of  species  in  nature,  thus  proving  that  the  world  of  nature,  as  well  as 
human  history,  was  subject  to  development  in  time.  The  advance  of 
the  natural  sciences  had  meanwhile  produced  the  by-product  of  modern 
techniques  which  led  to  the  most  remarkable  conquest  of  nature  by 
man.  Natural  resources  were  exploited  for  human  ends,  and  natural 


112  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

forces  harnessed  to  human  purposes.  Human  well-being  and  security 
were  thereby  tremendously  improved.  New  means  of  communication 
and  transportation  annihilated  space  and  time,  and  the  growth  of  the 
medical  sciences  seemed  to  arrest  the  ravages  of  time  in  the  human 
organism. 

The  achievement  of  modern  culture  was  the  discovery  of  an 
indubitable  growth  in  man's  freedom  and  power  over  nature,  including 
to  some  degree  a  development  of  freedom  and  power  over  his  own 
nature.  The  dubious  conclusion  drawn  from  this  discovery  (a  conclu- 
sion which  colored  the  whole  of  our  culture)  was  the  belief  that  this 
growth  in  human  freedom  and  power  was  the  guarantee  of  the 
redemption  of  man  from  the  ills  and  evils  which  corrupt  his  life. 
Perhaps  he  was,  or  had  been,  ignorant  but  he  was  moving  toward  a 
higher  intelligence;  and  the  evils  due  to  ignorance  would  thus  be 
cUminated.  Parochial  tribalism  and  nationalism  would  gradually  give 
way  to  universal  loyalties.  Superstitious  fears  would  give  way  to  the 
serenity  of  true  knowledge.  Perhaps  man  was  or  had  been  weak,  but 
he  was  becoming  strong.  In  time  he  would  become  strong  enough  to 
change  his  ambiguous  position  of  both  creature  and  creator  of  historical 
destiny  to  the  position  of  the  unambiguous  master  of  his  own  historical 
faith. 

It  was  this  faith  in  historical  progress  which  led  to  the  equation  of 
the  word  "progressive"  with  the  word  "good"  and  which  seemed  to 
invalidate  every  scheme  of  redemption  imbedded  in  the  classical  and 
historical  reUgions.  The  effect  upon  our  institutions  of  higher  learning 
was  particularly  marked  because  they  were  naturally  in  closer  contact 
with  the  new  streams  of  modern  thought  than  was  the  culture  in  gen- 
eral. Thus  it  was  possible  for  modern  education  to  beUeve  that  the 
so-called  spiritual  problem  of  man  was  identical  with  his  intellectual 
problem;  and  that  the  ultimate  issues  of  human  existence  could  be 
solved  by  an  educational  program  which  would  help  men  to  under- 
stand and  to  co-operate  with  this  marvelous  movement  of  humanity 
toward  ever  higher  and  more  inclusive  ends. 

THERE  was  something  wrong  with  this  belief  that  history  is  re- 
demptive. The  experience  of  the  twentieth  century  proved  that 
there  was  an  error  in  the  estimates.  Instead  of  the  expected  movement 


OUR   PILGRIMAGE   FROM    HOPE   TO   PERPLEXITY  II3 

toward  a  "parliament  of  mankind  and  the  federation  of  the  world," 
the  world  became  involved  in  two  successive  global  wars;  and  at  the 
termination  of  the  second  the  possibiUty  of  avoiding  a  third  was  uncer- 
tain. Instead  of  a  movement  toward  universal  democracy,  a  badly 
shattered  democratic  society  had  to  face  two  successive  forms  of 
tyranny:  the  one  informed  by  a  morally  cynical  creed  and  the  second 
one  (which  we  are  now  facing)  having  distilled  tyranny  from  the 
presuppositions  of  a  Utopian  creed.  Instead  of  a  gradual  movement 
from  the  use  of  the  so-called  "methods  of  force"  to  the  so-called 
"methods  of  mind,"  our  civilization  moved  inexorably  from  partial  to 
total  wars,  total  wars  being  those  in  which  the  entire  community  with 
all  of  its  resources  is  harnessed  to  the  martial  task.  This  task  inci- 
dentally availed  itself  of  ever  more  lethal  instruments  of  destruction. 
Where  was  the  miscalculation  which  betrayed  us  to  derive  from  an 
indubitable  fact,  the  dubious  and  now  refuted  conclusion  that  historical 
development  is  redemptive?  The  miscalculation  was  this:  It  was  as- 
sumed that  the  source  of  evil  in  human  nature  was  solely  in  human 
finiteness,  in  the  ignorance  of  the  human  mind,  in  the  passions  of  the 
body,  in  the  parochialism  of  yesterday.  If  this  were  really  the  source 
of  evil  in  human  nature,  then  the  growth  of  human  freedom  would 
be  tantamount  to  the  growth  in  virtue.  Increasing  freedom  over  nat- 
ural or  primitive  restraints  would  bring  more  inclusive  and  vaUd  ends 
of  human  conduct. 

The  real  fact  is  that  the  evils  which  corrupt  man  are  due  to  cor- 
ruptions of  his  freedom.  They  may  therefore  develop  with  the  growth 
of  freedom.  A  new  power  in  human  hands  can  be  used  for  particular, 
rather  than  universal,  ends.  It  is  in  fact  used  initially  for  such  ends. 
Even  when  a  new  power  is  not  in  the  hands  of  an  obviously  aggressive 
commimity  this  is  the  case.  The  power  of  atomic  destruction  is  in  the 
hands  of  our  nation;  and  we  find  the  greatest  difficulty  in  making  it 
the  servant  of  a  universal  community  rather  than  merely  the  servant 
of  our  own  power.  We  hoped  originally  that  the  fear  of  atomic  destruc- 
tion would  prove  the  propulsive  power  for  the  establishment  of  a 
universal  community.  But  that  hope  proved  vain.  We  discovered  that 
the  particular  fears  of  men,  the  fears  of  what  a  particular  nation  may 
do  to  another  particular  nation  are  more  potent  than  the  abstract  fear 
by  universal  man  of  universal  destruction. 


114 


SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 


We  are  forced  by  our  contemporary  experience  to  make  a  rigorous 
adjustment  in  our  previous  beliefs  about  life  and  history.  The  truth 
embodied  in  the  hopes  of  the  nineteenth  century  is  that  human  power 
and  freedom  do  indeed  develop.  This  development  means  that  ancient 
problems  are  presented  to  us  in  ever  new  dimensions.  The  problem 
of  creating  a  stable  community  with  a  tolerable  justice  is  as  ancient  as 
the  human  race.  The  significance  of  historic  development  Ues  in  the 
fact  that  we  now  face  the  problem  in  global  terms.  We  have  to  solve 
the  problem  on  the  global  level  or  perish. 

The  error  which  we  must  correct  is  the  belief  that  the  increase  of 
human  freedom  and  power  solves  any  problem  of  human  existence. 
Actually  it  makes  old  problems  more  complex.  It  does  this  because 
there  is  no  virtue  in  freedom  as  such.  The  evils  which  men  do  are  not 
merely  the  consequence  of  the  inertia  of  nature.  Race  prejudice  is  not 
merely  the  vestigial  remnant  of  barbarism.  Race  prejudice  is  the  by- 
product of  racial  pride  which  may  arise  afresh  on  every  level  of  group 
life.  To  think  of  ourselves  more  highly  than  we  ought  to  think  is  a 
perpetual  temptation  to  men  on  every  level  of  cukure  and  civilization. 
The  primitive  tribalist  expresses  a  moderate  form  of  such  pride.  A 
great  America,  dreaming  of  the  possibility  of  creating  an  "American 
century,"  expresses  another  form  of  it. 

Naturally  we  require  constantly  finer  and  more  precise  instru- 
ments of  cukure  to  deal  with  the  problems  of  human  togetherness  on 
the  new  level  on  which  we  now  stand.  Every  technique  of  psychology 
and  every  insight  of  the  social  sciences  will  be  of  value  to  us  in  under- 
standing and  coming  to  terms  with  our  fellow  men;  but  no  form  of 
knowledge  guarantees  virtue  and  no  intellectual  discipline  alone  deter- 
mines whether  a  man  or  a  nation  will  use  his  or  its  freedom  to  exercise 
dominion  over  others,  to  isolate  self  from  others,  or  to  come  into  a 
relation  of  mutual  helpfulness  with  them. 

IN  CONSIDERING  the  modcm  miscalculation  about  the  effects  of  the 
historical  development  of  human  freedom  and  power,  we  have 
already  touched  upon  a  second  article  in  the  creed  of  the  nineteenth 
century  which  is  implicit  in  the  first  article.  It  is  the  belief  that  the 
historical  development  of  the  power  of  reason,  results  inevitably  in  an 
increase  of  virtue.  The  faith  in  the  growth  of  mind  is,  of  course,  only 


OUR   PILGRIMAGE   FROM    HOPE   TO   PERPLEXITY  II5 

one  Strand  in  the  general  evolutionary  approach  to  life  and  history. 
The  social  Darwinists  believed  that  the  ethical  progress  of  the  human 
race  was  propelled  by  a  struggle  for  survival.  They  regarded  human 
history  merely  as  an  extension  of  the  world  of  nature.  But  in  general 
even  the  naturalistic  philosophies  have  not  accepted  this  thesis.  They 
have  thought  of  historical  progress  as  due  to  the  development  of  the 
power  of  reason.  Moral  evil,  declares  Leonard  T.  Hobhouse,  "is  the 
result  of  the  pursuit  of  partial  ends  without  regard  to  the  effect  upon 
others."  The  development  of  virtue  is  guaranteed  by  the  growth  of 
mind,  both  the  mind  in  the  human  agents  in  the  historical  process  and 
of  a  kind  of  world  mind  "operating  under  mechanical  conditions, 
which  it  comes  by  degrees  to  master."^  Sometimes  it  was  assumed 
that  it  was  the  development  of  the  rational  faculty  itself  which  assured 
the  pursuit  of  the  more  inclusive  rather  than  the  partial  and  parochial 
end.  In  support  of  such  a  thesis  it  could  be  pointed  out  that  the 
rational  faculty  is  indeed  subject  to  historical  development.  Children 
and  primitive  people  have  only  an  inchoate  capacity  for  conceptual 
knowledge.  The  power  of  reason  does  grow;  though  it  may  be  ques- 
tioned whether  it  grows  indeterminately,  whether  for  instance  any 
modern  philosopher  could  claim  to  be  endowed  with  a  purer  or  pro- 
founder  reason  than  Aristotle. 

More  frequently  confidence  was  placed  not  so  much  in  the  growth 
of  innate  rational  capacities  as  in  the  development  of  rational  tech- 
niques for  the  management  of  human  affairs,  analogous  to  the  develop- 
ment of  scientific  techniques  for  the  conquest  of  nature.  "Can  we 
not,"  asked  a  typical  exemplar  of  nineteenth  century  thought,  "change 
the  habits  of  men  by  the  same  intelligence  with  which  we  altered  the 
face  of  nature?"  "The  methods  of  mind,"  declares  a  social  scientist, 
"applied  to  nature  resulted  in  civilization.  But  they  have  not  yet  been 
applied  to  civilization  itself.  When  they  are  we  will  determine  histor- 
ical destiny  as  we  have  mastered  natural  process." 

John  Dewey  believes  that  the  only  reason  why  we  have  not  used 
these  methods  of  mind  in  the  realm  of  human  affairs  (in  other  words, 
why  we  have  not  achieved  the  attitude  of  disinterestedness  which 
characterizes  pure  science)  is  that  the  struggle  for  the  emancipation 

^Hobhouse,  Leonard  T.  Development  and  Purpose.  Second  Edition.  London: 
Macmillan  and  Company,  1927.  pp.  481-85. 


Il6  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

of  the  sciences  resulted  in  a  compromise  rather  than  in  a  clear-cut 
victory  for  science.  In  that  compromise  the  natural  sciences  were  given 
their  freedom  while  the  humanities  remained  under  the  restraints  of 
traditional  authorities,  particularly  church  and  state.  All  we  need  is 
one  more  movement  of  emancipation.  All  we  need,  according  to  other 
similar  interpretations,  is  a  little  more  time  to  give  the  social  sciences 
a  chance  to  mature. 

Even  when  one  recognizes,  as  does  Julian  Huxley  in  his  Man  and 
the  Modern  World,  that  there  is  a  radical  difference  between  the 
world  of  nature  and  the  world  of  human  nature  and  history,  the 
radical  difference  is  obscured  almost  as  soon  as  it  is  revealed.  The 
difference  between  the  two  realms  according  to  Huxley  is  that  man  is 
himself  involved  in  the  historical  process  and  is  not  merely  a  disin- 
terested spectator.  Exactly  so.  That  is  the  "existential  element"  in  the 
realm  of  history.  We  can  never  look  at  a  problem  in  human  relations 
in  terms  of  pure  rational  disinterestedness  because  we  are  not  pure 
minds.  Our  minds  are  organically  related  to  ourselves  as  persons.  As 
persons  we  love  and  fear  one  another.  We  compete  with  one  another 
for  power  and  for  glory — and  sometimes  for  bread.  Huxley  sees  a 
Httle  of  this  problem.  We  are  inclined  to  "bias,"  he  declares,  in  our 
social  judgments  as  we  are  not  inclined  in  the  judgments  of  natural 
science.  But,  he  goes  on  to  suggest,  this  problem  of  bias  represents 
only  a  momentary  perplexity  in  the  onward  march  of  man.  For  we 
will  in  time  invent  techniques  by  which  social  bias  of  every  type  will 
be  eliminated  as  successfully  as  the  natural  sciences  established  their 
rigorous  standards. 

Huxley  states  the  creed  of  the  past  century  in  a  nutshell.  One 
could  offer  similar  quotations  from  many  belated  children  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  still  living  in  this  century  of  perplexity.  We  must 
consider  the  modicum  of  truth  in  this  position  before  dealing  with  its 
error.  It  is  true  that  the  social  and  historical  sciences  can  invent  end- 
lessly more  astute  techniques  for  the  detection  of  an  ideological  taint 
in  the  position  of  a  class,  in  the  idealism  of  a  nation,  or  in  the  preten- 
sions of  an  individual.  Psychology  and  sociology  each  has  its  own  way 
of  dealing  with  the  problem  of  rationalization,  which  is  to  say  with  the 
inclination  of  man  to  make  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason  when 


OUR   PILGRIMAGE   FROM    HOPE   TO   PERPLEXITY  II7 

his  interests  are  at  stake.  We  can  not  afford  ever  to  cease  our  vigilance 
or  diligence  in  establishing  honest  rather  than  dishonest  estimates  of 
the  hopes,  fears,  and  ambitions  of  nations  other  than  our  own;  or  of 
the  ideals  and  prejudices  of  an  age  dififerent  from  our  own;  or  the 
desires  and  ideals  of  any  competitive  force  in  life.  But  all  of  these 
disciplines  cannot  change  the  fact  that  the  encounter  between  life  and 
life,  between  nation  and  nation  is  something  more  and  something  less 
than  a  purely  intellectual  encounter;  or  that  its  problems  could  be 
solved  by  a  purely  intellectual  means.  These  are  encounters  in  which 
the  whole  of  human  personality  is  involved.  In  dealing  with  nature, 
the  mind  of  man  is  at  the  center  of  the  enterprise,  and  the  human 
personality,  with  all  of  its  hopes,  fears,  and  ambitions,  is  on  the  cir- 
cumference. Nature  as  such  does  not  challenge  our  security.  But  in 
judging  each  other  (and  all  social  judgments  are  judgments  of  each 
other)  the  human  personaUty  is  at  the  center  of  the  enterprise  and  the 
mind  tends  to  be  the  instrument  of  the  hopes  and  fears  of  the  per- 
sonality. We  arrive  at  proximate  impartiality  in  society  by  relying 
upon  groups  which  are  not  immediately  involved  in  a  dispute;  and  we 
seek  to  construct  organs  of  government,  particularly  judicial  instru- 
ments, which  are  relatively  impartial.  We  are  enabled  furthermore 
to  make  relatively  impartial  historical  judgments  because  there  always 
comes  an  age  which  is  suflEiciently  detached  from  the  fears  and  furies 
of  a  previous  age  to  view  its  tumults,  as  we  say,  impartially.  Yet  even 
that  mode  of  impartiality  has  its  limits.  Let  an  historian,  for  instance, 
review  the  age  of  Jackson  and  let  it  appear  that  there  are  analogies 
and  affinities  between  Jackson  and  Roosevelt.  Then  his  judgments 
will  be  judged  according  to  our  present  opinion  about  the  virtues  and 
defects  of  the  New  Deal. 

There  are,  in  short,  no  completely  rational  solutions  for  achieving 
disinterestedness  either  in  our  observation  of  the  facts  or  in  our  actions. 
"Knowledge,"  says  a  modern  philosopher,  "is  the  achievement  of  a 
spectator  who  stands  outside  the  scene  which  he  observes,  reports,  and 
interprets.  Only  a  spectator  can  meet  the  requirements  of  disinterested- 
ness and  objectivity.""    Very  true.    But  the  difficulty  is  that  in  the 

^  Adams,  George  P.  "Ethical  Principles  of  the  New  Civilization,"  in  Our  Emergent 
Civilization,  Ruth  Anshen,  editor.  Science  and  Culture  Series,  Vol.  IV.  New  York: 
Harper  and  Brothers,  1947.    p.  198. 


Il8  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

absolute  sense  there  are  no  pure  spectators  in  the  human  arena.  We 
are  all  participants  in  the  contests  and  struggles  of  history.  The  general 
increase  in  intelligence  tends  to  increase  the  power  of  the  contestants. 
Thus  there  has  been  a  development  from  tribe  to  empire  which  is 
related  to  the  growth  of  every  form  of  human  freedom.  It  also  in- 
creases the  number  and  complexity  of  relations  between  the  individual 
and  the  collective  agents  in  human  society.  But  whether  a  man  or  a 
nation  desires  to  live  for  the  self  or  for  the  whole,  whether  the  force  of 
a  life  is  primarily  egoistic  or  social  is  not  finally  determined  by  the 
power  of  reason.  Intelligence  may  well  increase  the  range  over  which 
an  egoistic  force  operates  rather  than  the  direction  of  its  operation. 

THE  question  of  the  purpose  and  direction  of  a  life,  the  truly  spirit- 
ual and  moral  question  is  decided  not  by  the  mind  but  by  the  self. 
The  mind  may  well  enlarge  the  sympathies  of  the  self,  it  may  overcome 
fears  due  to  misunderstanding  and  create  a  degree  of  mutual  trust, 
based  upon  the  fuller  understanding  of  the  purposes  of  friend,  foe,  or 
competitor.  There  is  even  a  possibility  that  pure  logic  can  be  made  a 
servant  of  virtue,  for  a  logical  person  may  find  it  difficult  to  claim  for 
himself  what  he  is  not  willing  to  grant  to  another.  There  are  all  sorts 
of  relations  of  the  mind  ancillary  to  the  ultimate  moral  issue.  Yet 
finally  the  self  beyond  the  mind  is  engaged.  Whether  the  excellency 
of  another  person  incites  my  envy  or  my  admiration  is  not  determined 
by  my  inteUigence  but  at  a  deeper  or  higher  level  of  selfhood  than  my 
rational  processes.  Whether  I  am  loyal  or  disloyal  in  the  family  rela- 
tion or  in  any  other  intimate  relation  of  mankind  is  an  issue  with 
which  the  self  is  confronted.  Whether  I  use  the  weakness  of  another 
as  the  occasion  for  dominating  or  helping  him  is  a  moral  and  spiritual 
issue  in  which  the  whole  self  is  involved. 

While  there  is  no  collective  self  in  the  exact  sense  of  the  word,  it 
is  nevertheless  true  that  the  moral  issues  which  nations  face  are  also 
in  a  dimension  different  from  that  of  pure  reason.  America  must 
choose  whether  she  will  use  her  power  to  preserve  her  own  security 
without  reference  to  the  weal  and  woe  of  the  world  as  the  isolationists 
would  have  us  do;  or  whether  we  will  use  it  to  dominate  the  world  as 
the  imperialists  would  have  it;  or  whether  our  power  shall  be  used 


OUR   PILGRIMAGE   FROM    HOPE  TO    PERPLEXITY  II9 

responsibly  for  the  wider  organization  of  the  community  of  mankind. 
It  must  be  observed  that  the  collective  self,  if  there  is  such  a  self,  never 
makes  a  purely  moral,  which  is  to  say  a  purely  disinterested  decision. 
It  may  be  that  a  wise  self-interest  is  the  highest  level  to  which  collective 
action  may  rise.  This  means  that  a  great  deal  of  social  intelligence 
must  enter  into  the  right  action  of  nations.  We  must  learn  that  the 
alternative  of  isolation  is  not  in  our  own  interest  in  the  long  run 
because  the  interdependence  of  the  modern  world  is  such  as  to  make 
isolation  impossible.  We  may  also  learn  something  about  the  hazards 
of  imperial  dominion  and  the  short  shrift  of  the  pride  of  powerful 
nations.  These  considerations  may  support  virtue  in  our  actions  and 
check  the  most  flagrant  forms  of  vice.  Yet  finally  the  moral  decision 
which  confronts  nations  is  met  not  merely  by  rational  and  prudential 
calculations.  The  self,  either  individual  or  collective,  has  or  does  not 
have  a  sense  of  responsibility  beyond  itself.  Even  at  best  that  sense  of 
responsibility  is  never  as  strong  as  is  required  either  for  the  social  peace 
and  justice  of  a  community  or  for  the  concord  between  communities. 
It  is  more  difficult  to  preserve  both  justice  and  peace  than  the  nine- 
teenth century  imagined.  Governments  are  always  partly  coercive 
because  individuals  are  not  disposed  to  do  voluntarily  all  things  they 
ought  to  do  for  the  common  good.  A  world  government  requires 
coercive  power  over  nations  for  the  same  reason;  though  it  is  obviously 
much  more  difficult  to  find  the  basis  of  a  coercive  great  enough  to 
bring  the  will  of  nations  under  its  dominion  than  those  believe  who 
think  that  the  world  community  waits  merely  upon  the  explication  of 
an  ideal  system  of  world  law. 

Thus  we  face  not  merely  the  moral  issue  of  how  to  do  good  and 
avoid  evil  in  a  deeper  dimension  than  the  previous  century.  We  also 
face  the  perplexity  that  in  the  ultimate  sense  neither  an  individual  nor 
a  nation  is  as  good,  that  is  as  disinterested,  as  the  peace  and  justice  of 
the  larger  community  require.  This  raises  a  fundamental  religious 
issue  about  the  meaning  of  human  existence.  It  raises  the  question 
about  what  life  means  if  there  is  within  us  a  disposition  to  violate  in 
our  actions  some  of  our  deepest  insights  about  the  meaning  of  life.  Is 
there  a  resource  human  or  divine  which  overcomes  this  contradiction  ? 
The  whole  of  the  Christian  faith  is  in  a  sense  an  answer  to  that  ques- 


120  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

tion.  But  that  answer  has  been  regarded  as  irrelevant  by  modern 
culture  because  it  did  not  take  the  contradiction  within  man  himself 
seriously.  It  saw  a  certain  tension  between  the  passions  of  the  flesh  and 
the  larger  and  more  inclusive  purposes  of  mind.  But  this  tension  would 
be  resolved  as  mind  became  more  powerful  and  brought  all  stuff  of 
nature  under  its  dominion.  If  it  should  be  true  that  the  contradiction 
within  ourselves,  the  contradiction  between  what  we  are  and  what  we 
ought  to  be,  grows  and  develops  and  expresses  itself  more  poignantly 
on  a  high  than  on  a  low  level  of  culture,  we  would  face  an  old 
perplexity  about  human  existence  in  a  new  dimension. 

If  furthermore  the  inadequacy  of  man  for  his  social  task  involves 
us  in  the  kind  of  political  perplexities  in  which  we  now  stand,  if  history 
does  not  so  simply  fulfill  our  most  cherished  hopes  but  confronts  us 
with  the  most  terrible  frustrations  and  with  situations  in  which  we 
can  do  no  good  without  doing  a  great  deal  of  evil,  would  we  not  then 
discover  that  the  historical  process,  which  was  supposed  to  answer  all 
human  questions  and  fulfill  all  legitimate  human  desires,  had  itself 
become  the  chief  perplexity  of  modern  man? 

IN  RAISING  such  questions  I  do  not  want  to  suggest  that  schools  of 
higher  learning  should  not  regard  intellectual  disciplines  as  their 
primary  function.  It  is  their  business  both  to  store  the  mind  with 
adequate  knowledge  and  to  sharpen  it  as  a  tool.  It  is  their  business  to 
elaborate  every  technique  of  knowledge  by  which  man  comes  into 
effective  control  of  the  processes  of  nature  and  by  which  he  learns  to 
understand  the  destiny  of  nations  and  cultures,  the  rise  and  fall  of 
civihzations,  the  intricacies  of  the  human  psyche,  and  the  complexities 
of  human  relations  in  their  economic,  political,  and  other  forms  of 
togetherness.  The  university  is  not  primarily  a  character-building  in- 
stitution. In  a  sense  it  can  never  have  that  function,  primarily. 

But  it  does  make  a  difference  whether  the  educational  task  is 
pursued  with  an  understanding  of  the  mysteries  and  perplexities  of 
human  character  and  destiny  which  lie  at  the  side  of  this  road  of  the 
elaboration  of  reason  and  knowledge,  or  whether  it  is  believed,  as  the 
past  century  tended  to  believe,  that  these  mysteries  are  no  more  than 
the  residual  ignorance  of  a  more  primitive  culture  which  the  ever 
broader  road  of  learning  will  overcome. 


OUR   PILGRIMAGE   FROM    HOPE   TO   PERPLEXITY  121 

In  a  sense  the  whole  of  our  modern  approach  to  these  problems  has 
been  influenced  by,  or  has  unconsciously  followed,  the  philosophy  of 
Comte.  Comte  believed  that  mankind  was  moving  from  a  theological 
to  a  philosophical,  and  then  from  a  philosophical  to  a  scientific  age.  In 
this  development  he  assigned  the  second  period,  the  philosophical,  no 
more  than  the  negative  task  of  corroding  the  superstitions  of  religion, 
by  the  power  of  reason,  thus  making  way  for  science  and  for  the 
scientific  solution  of  every  ultimate  and  every  social  issue  which  faces 
human  existence.  There  has  indeed  been  something  like  such  a  devel- 
opment, at  least  in  the  sense  that  religion  is  older  than  philosophy  and 
philosophy  is  older  than  science  and  that  science  is  the  latest  and  most 
prolific  fruit  of  human  culture.  There  is,  however,  a  bare  possibility 
that  this  development  involves  more  perplexities  than  Comte  under- 
stood. It  may  be  that  religion  expresses  a  naive  profundity  about  ulti- 
mate issues  akin  to  the  naivete  of  children  and  those  who  are  unspoiled 
by  a  high  culture.  In  our  naivete  we  may  ask  ultimate  questions  more 
successfully  than  in  our  sophistication.  The  answers  are  not  broad  as 
well  as  deep  until  philosophy  arises  to  bring  order  out  of  the  chaos  of 
contradictory  answers  and  to  insist  upon  coherent  and  consistent  world 
views  and  life  views.  Science  follows — a  final  third  stage.  It  fills  the 
world  picture  and  the  life  picture  with  every  detail.  It  traces  causal 
sequences  upon  every  level  of  reality,  natural  and  historical,  biological 
and  psychological,  geological  and  astronomical.  But  there  is  the  pos- 
sibility that  this  third  stage  may  result  in  a  deterioration  of  culture.  If, 
for  instance,  it  is  assumed  that  piling  up  many  answers  to  many 
detailed  questions  puts  us  in  the  possession  of  more  and  more  truth 
about  ultimate  questions,  would  not  such  a  development  represent  a 
deterioration  of  culture? 

Is  there  not  a  possibility  that  the  philosophical  passion  for  coher- 
ence and  the  scientific  passion  for  coherence  in  detail  may  obscure  the 
profound  ambiguities  and  antinomies  of  human  existence?  Do  we 
not  tend  to  understand  ourselves  too  simply  either  if  we  seek  to  under- 
stand man  as  a  creature  of  nature  who  is  only  slightly  distinguished 
from  other  creatures  in  nature;  or  if  we  try  to  understand  ourselves 
primarily  as  rational  creatures  who  are  only  provisionally  bound  to 
natural  necessities?  Is  not  the  clue  to  the  understanding  of  the  human 
self  the  perplexity  about  the  ambiguity  of  the  self  in  its  involvement 


122  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

in  and  transcendence  over  natural  process?  And  does  not  this  same 
ambiguity  exist  in  regard  to  the  self's  relation  to  the  historical  process, 
which  is  made  possible  by  the  unique  capacity  of  man  to  break  the 
harmonies  of  nature?  Man  is  both  a  creature  and  a  creator  of  history. 
He  is  not  merely  a  creature  of  history  as  those  assert  who  underestimate 
his  unique  freedom.  But  neither  is  he  in  the  process  of  overcoming 
his  ambiguity  in  the  historical  process  until  he  finally  establishes  him- 
self as  the  complete  master  of  his  own  destiny.  This  ambiguity  is  a 
permanent  fate  of  man.  So  also  is  the  human  tendency  to  overestimate 
his  power  and  his  wisdom  and  to  deny  his  mortality. 

We  thus  face  the  situation  that  a  scientific  culture  which  has  added 
up  many  detailed  facts  about  many  aspects  of  human  existence  fre- 
quently arrives  at  superficial  answers  to  ultimate  issues.  It  certainly 
gave  us  many  answers  about  our  nature  and  our  destiny  which  did 
not  enable  us  to  anticipate  the  possibility  of  a  technically  powerful 
civilization  standing  on  the  abyss  of  disaster.  It  does  not  offer  us  many 
resources  for  living  courageously  and  serenely  in  an  epoch  of  frustra- 
tion and  disaster,  such  as  we  are  fated  to  endure  for  decades  to  come. 

For  such  an  age  we  require  a  faith  which  is  neither  too  simply 
voluntaristic,  overestimating  the  power  of  human  decision  in  the  vast 
patterns  of  human  history;  nor  too  simply  deterministic,  reducing  man 
to  an  automaton  within  those  forces.  We  require  a  faith  which  does 
justice  both  to  the  freedom  of  man  and  to  the  overarching  patterns  of 
life  which  are  not  answerable  to  his  will,  a  faith  which  will  avail  itself 
of  interpretations  of  human  destiny  which  are  not  so  simply  rational. 

We  require  an  interpretation  of  the  mysteries  of  human  selfhood 
which  equate  the  self  with  neither  its  mind  nor  with  its  purely  physical 
impulses.  Such  an  interpretation  will  avail  itself  of  every  insight  which 
the  psychological  sciences  may  supply.  But  it  will  recognize  an  ulti- 
mate mystery  of  the  self's  free  decisions  and  responsibilities,  and  know 
that  the  problem  of  whether  the  self  will  seek  to  live  merely  for  itself 
or  will  seek  to  realize  itself  by  losing  itself  in  the  larger  life  is  an 
ultimate  issue  of  Hfe  which  is  decided  not  as  a  rational  but  as  an 
existential  problem. 

We  require  an  interpretation  of  the  complexities  of  human  history 
which  does  justice  to  the  vast  antinomies  and  tragedies  of  life,  the  chaos 


OUR   PILGRIMAGE    FROM    HOPE   TO    PERPLEXITY  1 23 

and  cross  purposes  in  human  development,  not  as  a  chaos  which 
belongs  merely  to  yesterday  and  is  being  progressively  eliminated  but 
which  is  a  permanent  aspect  of  human  existence. 

The  tendency  of  a  culture  which  has  solved  the  problems  of  life 
too  simply  is  to  move  from  complacency  to  despair.  In  Europe  this 
despair  is  already  fully  developed.  In  our  own  nation  we  are  just 
beginning  to  move  from  complacency  to  despair.  A  too  simple  faith 
in  human  virtue  gives  way  to  cynicism.  A  too  simple  faith  in  the 
power  of  human  reason  gives  way  to  relativism  and  nihilism.  A  too 
simple  faith  in  the  redemptive  power  of  history  gives  way  to  pessimism. 

Our  whole  educational  enterprise  must  be  sensitive  to  these  larger 
issues  of  the  spiritual  Ufe.  Whether  it  is  philosophy  or  history  or  liter- 
ature or  any  of  the  humanities  which  is  the  subject  of  our  study,  we 
are  interpreting  life  to  a  confused  generation  in  an  age  of  great  per- 
plexity. This  generation  like  every  generation  of  mankind  finally  asks 
ultimate  questions  about  the  meaning  of  its  existence.  It  is  entitled  to 
answers  which  contain  more  than  the  prejudices  and  illusions  of  an 
age  of  security.  It  is  entitled  to  answers  which  draw  upon  the  whole 
wisdom  of  the  ages. 

There  is  spiritual  and  moral  value  in  every  intellectual  discipline 
of  a  great  center  of  learning.  But  a  greater  modesty  is  required  in  the 
intellectual  pursuits  of  an  age  of  perplexity.  That  modesty  must  express 
itself  in  a  realization  of  the  realm  of  mystery  and  meaning  which  sur- 
rounds any  area  in  which  we  have  certain  knowledge;  and  in  a  recog- 
nition of  the  profound  tragedies  and  antinomies  of  human  existence 
which  are  not  easily  brought  into  our  simple  schemes  of  meaning;  and 
finally  in  a  sympathy  for  every  moral  and  spiritual  discipline,  whether 
in  the  academic  process  itself  or  ancillary  to  it,  which  deals  with  men 
in  their  wholeness  and  in  their  integrity  as  responsible  persons. 


THE  SEVENTY-FIFTH  ANNIVERSARY 
DINNER 

Toastmaster: 

Harlan  H.  Hatcher,  Vice-President,  The  Ohio  State  University 

SpeaJ^ers: 

Carl  W.  Weygandt,  Chief  Justice,  The  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio 

John  B.  Fullen,  Secretary,  The  Ohio  State  University  Association 

James  J.  Hurley,  Consul,  The  Dominion  of  Canada 

Ramon  Gual,  Consul,  The  Republic  of  Mexico 

Donald  C.  Power,  Board  of  Trustees,  The  Ohio  State  University 

Karl  Taylor  Compton,  Chairman,  Research  and  Development  Board, 

United  States  Armed  Forces 
Howard  L.  Bevis,  President,  The  Ohio  State  University 


OPENING  REMARKS 
By  Harlan  H.  Hatcher 

GREETINGS  will  be  presented  by  Carl  V.  Weygandt,  Chief  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  by  John  B. 
Fullen,  Secretary  of  the  Ohio  State  University  Association. 
James  J.  Hurley,  Consul,  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  and  Ramon  Gual, 
Consul,  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  bring  a  salutation  from  their  respec- 
tive countries.  The  Ohio  State  University  has  always  been  proud  of 
its  relationship  with  other  countries,  and  in  the  course  of  these  two 
days  of  festivity,  the  international  aspects  of  education  have  been 
emphasized  repeatedly.  The  University  hopes  that  these  two  distin- 
guished guests  will  express  to  their  respective  governments  the  best 
wishes  of  this  University  and  its  deep  appreciation  of  their  presence 
and  their  greetings. 

From  the  very  outset,  this  institution  has  had  in  its  service  some 
of  the  outstanding  citizens  of  the  state,  who  have  served  it  faithfully 
and  well  as  members  of  its  Board  of  Trustees.  During  critical  periods 
of  the  University's  development,  the  Board  has  always  furnished  con- 
structive leadership  and  has  supported  the  leadership  within  the  insti- 
tution so  that  difficult  transitions  have  been  successfully  made.  Donald 
Power,  a  graduate  of  the  institution,  formerly  a  faculty  member  and 
now  member  of  its  Board,  will  speak  for  the  trustees. 

The  main  address  of  the  evening  will  be  deUvered  by  Karl 
Compton  who  needs  no  introduction  to  an  Ohio  audience,  since  he 
is  himself  an  Ohio  man.  Not  only  all  Ohioans  but  all  scientists,  all 
men  of  learning  everywhere,  know  his  name  and  his  achievements 
as  a  student  at  Wooster,  as  a  student  and  physicist  at  Princeton,  as 
president  of  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology,  as  a  man  who  has 
assumed  the  responsibiUties  thrust  upon  him  by  this  nation  during 
the  second  World  War,  particularly  in  the  fields  of  radar  and  atomic 
energy.  You  know  the  long  Ust  of  honors  which  have  come  to  him. 
You  also  know  that  he  is  about  to  assume  the  very  heavy  obligation 
of  chairman  of  the  Research  and  Development  Board  of  our  Armed 
Services.   The  subject  of  his  address  will  be  "Science  and  Security." 

126 


OPENING   REMARKS  1 27 

The  concluding  remarks  of  the  celebration  commemorating  the 
seventy-fifth  anniversary  of  the  opening  of  classes  at  The  Ohio  State 
University  will  be  made  by  Howard  L.  Bevis.  Many  of  you  will 
remember  the  occasion  eight  years  ago  when  he  was  inducted  in  this 
very  hall  as  the  president  of  the  University.  You  will  remember  that 
we  had  gone  through  the  depression.  You  will  remember  that  the 
clouds  of  war  were  already  gathering  over  us.  During  Howard  L, 
Bevis'  administration,  it  has  been  his  responsibility  to  carry  us  first 
through  those  days  before  the  war  struck  us,  then  through  the  difficult 
period  of  the  war  itself,  through  the  readjustments  necessitated  by  the 
twenty-five  thousand  students  who  came  to  our  campus,  and  to  project 
us  into  the  future.  Many  of  us  who  have  had  the  very  great  privilege 
of  working  closely  with  Howard  L.  Bevis,  love  him,  cherish  and 
admire  him  no  end  for  the  leadership  which  he  has  been  exerting  in 
this  institution  in  his  usual  quiet  but  none  the  less  forceful  and 
unswerving  way  to  build  here  the  kind  of  institution  that  we  hope 
to  see  materiahze  in  the  period  that  lies  just  ahead. 


RESPONSE 
FOR  THE  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT  OF    OHIO 

By  Carl  V.  Weygandt 

THE  fact  that  I  have  been  asked  to  speak  for  the  people  of  Ohio 
and  the  government  of  Ohio  means  that  I  have  the  opportu- 
nity to  express  to  the  assembly  this  evening  the  greetings  and 
congratulations  of  some  seven  millions  of  people.  Everyone  of  us  in  the 
state  is  proud  of  this  great  institution,  proud  of  the  progress  it  has 
made,  and  proud  of  the  service  it  has  rendered.  But  may  I  venture  the 
prediction  that  when  we  reassemble  twenty-five  years  hence  to  celebrate 
the  centennial,  we  shall  look  back  to  this  occasion  and  realize  that 
great  as  was  the  progress  made  in  its  first  seventy-five  years.  The  Ohio 
State  University  was  in  1948  just  getting  rightly  started. 


138 


RESPONSE 
FOR  THE  ALUMNI 

By  John  B.  Fullen 

IN  VIEW  of  the  fact  that  this  is  a  birthday  party  for  a  lady,  it  docs 
seem  a  Httle  strange  that  her  age  is  displayed  so  conspicuously, 
displayed  all  over  the  room  to  her  guests — in  neon  lights,  no  less! 
But  when  you  remember  that  we  are  honoring  one  of  the  great  ladies 
of  higher  education,  the  emphasis  on  her  age  is  natural.  In  fact,  the 
older  our  great  lady  grows  the  lighter  will  rest  the  years  upon  her 
shoulders. 

The  Ohio  State  University  is  in  fact  only  a  sweet  young  thing  as 
universities  go.  You  remember  that  just  a  while  back  Harvard  cele- 
brated her  three-hundredth  anniversary.  In  view  of  Ohio  State's 
relatively  brief  years  of  service,  I  am  sure  that  we  may  be  indulged  a 
pardonable  pride  if  we  sing  her  a  panegyric  as  our  contribution  to 
these  exercises.  This  beloved  alma  mater  of  ours  has  put  seventy-five 
thousand  of  us  through  college  and  has  scrubbed  and  combed  twice 
that  many  more  who  did  not  finish  for  one  reason  or  another.  It  was 
her  outstretched  hand  which  opened  for  us  the  door  of  opportunity. 
Through  it  we  passed,  each  to  seek  out  for  himself  what  truth  might 
be.  She  gave  us  nature's  creatures  to  study,  including  man,  the  organ- 
ism, as  well  as  homo  sapiens,  the  soul.  She  taught  us  to  fashion  the 
tools  for  man's  hands  and  to  build  cathedrals  for  his  spirit.  She  taught 
us  to  defend  the  accused,  to  lead  the  distressed,  and  to  heal  the  sick. 
She  opened  new  vistas  in  the  distant  universe  for  us.  As  a  result,  she 
has  produced:  a  theologian  like  Gaius  Glenn  Atkins,  a  painter  like 
George  Bellows,  a  provost  like  Paul  Herman  Buck,  an  author  like 
Dorothy  Canfield,  a  research  director  like  Lewis  Warrington  Chubb, 
a  Big  Brother  like  Ernest  Kent  Coulter,  a  missionary  to  India  like  Sam 
Higginbottom,  a  clergyman  like  Ralph  Blake  Hindman,  a  physician 
like  Henry  Spencer  Houghton,  an  inventive  genius  like  Charles  F. 
Kettering,  a  journalist  like  Willard  Monroe  Kiplinger,  a  military  stra- 
tegist like  General  Curtis  E.  LeMay,  an  educator  like  James  Lewis 

129 


130  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

Morrill,  an  actor  and  playwright  like  Elliott  Nugent,  a  surgeon  like 
George  Thomas  Pack,  an  historian  like  Arthur  Meier  Schlesinger,  a 
humorist  like  James  G.  Thurber,  a  pathologist  like  Francis  Carter 
Wood. 

Last  year  518  of  the  persons  hsted  in  Who's  Who  in  America 
were  children  of  The  Ohio  State  University.  This  number  was  1.3 
per  cent  of  the  40,000  names  appearing  in  that  lexicon  of  the  illustrious. 

As  a  result  of  what  she  taught  us  in  her  laboratories  and  class- 
rooms, her  graduates  have  developed  for  the  world  such  things  as  the 
altimeter  for  airplanes,  nylon  and  cellophane,  the  iceless  refrigerator, 
the  modern  diesel  engine,  and  cobalt  60  for  cancer.  This  illustrative 
list  of  names  and  of  contributions  to  mankind  could  be  amplified 
many,  many  times  as  you  know. 

Not  all  of  us  have  built  cathedrals,  but  we  have  built  homes  and 
reared  families  and  have  shown  what  enlightened  and  useful  citizen- 
ship might  be.  Because  of  her  ministrations  we  were  better  equipped 
to  answer  the  call  to  the  work  of  the  world  and  to  discharge  our 
obligations  as  beneficiaries  of  state-supported  education. 

Is  it  any  wonder,  then,  that  we  glory  in  this  opportunity  to  bring 
to  our  academic  mother  prideful  felicitations  and  best  wishes  for  an 
even  more  distinguished  future?  We  greet  her  fondly  now  and  say, 
"Happy  birthday,  many  happy  returns  of  the  day." 


RESPONSE 
FOR  THE  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT  OF  CANADA 

By  James  J.  Hurley 

IT  IS  a  high  honor  for  me  to  be  here  this  evening,  enjoying  with  you 
your  seventy-fifth  birthday  party.  I  have  heard  wonderful  men 
give  wonderful  addresses  in  each  of  which  there  was  a  wonderful 
message.  I  regret,  indeed,  that  some  of  our  eastern  friends  could  not 
appear.  I  am  directed,  Mr.  President,  to  convey  to  you,  the  sincere 
regrets  of  our  ambassador  in  Washington,  the  Honorable  Hume 
Wrong,  at  his  inability  to  be  present.  Other  commitments  forced  him 
to  refuse  the  invitation.  His  bad  luck,  may  I  say,  is  my  good  luck. 

For  the  last  nine  years  I  have  been  given  an  opportunity  to  see, 
talk  with,  and  form  an  impression  of  the  thoughts  of,  the  people  of 
western  Europe  in  all  their  countries.  And  I  should  like  to  tell  you 
tonight  of  their  very  high  idea  of  you  and  your  country.  They  have 
seen  your  statesmen  and  your  soldiers  who  have  made  very  fine 
ambassadors,  perhaps  the  best  possible  ambassadors  that  you  could 
have  sent  abroad. 

Europeans  Hke  the  versatility  of  the  Americans,  their  obvious 
competence  and  confidence  in  themselves,  their  youthful  outlook; 
Europeans  have  come  to  like  your  way  of  hfe.  They  are  deeply  and 
sincerely  eager  to  have  your  support,  your  counsel,  your  friendship, 
and  above  all  your  leadership. 

You  came  out  of  the  World  War,  the  second  one  and  I  hope 
sincerely  the  last,  a  giant  among  nations.  To  you  has  fallen  the  leader- 
ship of  the  democratic  states.  You  have  wiHingly  and  unhesitatingly 
accepted  that  responsibiUty,  which  is  a  deep  one.  I  like  to  think  that 
part  of  your  willingness  and  your  ability  to  accept  responsibility  has 
been  induced  in  you  by  your  system  of  education,  which  is  known 
throughout  the  world  and  exemplified  by  the  seventy-five  years  of 
achievement  of  such  an  institution  as  The  Ohio  State  University. 

These  people  need  the  help  which  I  know  you  are  going  to  give 
them.   We,  in  Canada,  have  every  confidence  in  you  as  leaders  of  the 

131 


132  SE\^NTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

democratic  states.  We  who  are  so  closely  bound  with  you  and  know 
you  perhaps  better  than  the  other  countries  have  complete  faith  in  you. 
Therefore,  I  am  very  happy  tonight  to  bring  on  the  part  of  Canada 
congratulations  to  The  Ohio  State  University  for  its  seventy-five  years 
of  achievement,  and  Canada's  best  wishes  for  an  undoubtedly  great 
future. 


RESPONSE 
FOR  THE  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT  OF  MEXICO 

By  Ramon  Gual 

I  HAVE  accepted  this  invitation  to  be  present  at  the  observance  of  the 
seventy-fifth  anniversary  of  the  opening  of  the  doors  of  The  Ohio 
State  University,  known  not  only  to  the  youth  of  your  state  and 
your  nation,  but  to  the  world.  I  am  very  pleased  to  be  here  with  you, 
to  be  identified  with  the  notable  personalities  gathered  at  this  banquet, 
and  to  share  your  aspirations,  hopes,  and  purposes.  It  is  with  great 
pleasure  that  I  bring  in  the  name  of  Mexico,  my  beloved  country,  and 
in  the  name  of  our  President,  His  Excellency  Miguel  Aleman,  the 
warm  salutations  of  the  people  of  your  closest  southern  neighbor,  that 
country  below  the  Rio  Grande,  where  all  Americans  are  held  as  good 
friends  and  neighbors. 

This  magnificent  event,  that  crowns  long  years  of  outstanding 
educational  attainment,  will  be  remembered  in  the  decades  to  come. 
But  also  remembered  will  be  the  state  of  uncertainty  we  are  in  as  our 
leaders  try  for  the  final  settlement  of  a  just  peace  and  for  the  liquida- 
tion of  the  hideous  remains  of  war  that  have  despoiled  so  much  of 
mankind. 

We  all  know  that  one  of  the  principal  difficulties  in  the  settlement 
of  disputes  in  Europe  arises  from  the  task  of  understanding  the  many 
different  languages  spoken  there.  In  the  Western  Hemisphere  we 
have  a  simpler  problem.  Through  the  conferences  of  the  Pan  Amer- 
ican Union  and  other  inter-American  congresses,  mutual  understand- 
ing is  being  developed  gradually,  but  we  could  go  faster  and  further 
if  our  universities  could  succeed  in  combining  their  efforts  toward  the 
furtherance  of  widespread  English-Spanish  bilingual  education.  The 
goal  of  mutual  understanding  would  be  more  speedily  reached  if  we 
would  train  teachers  who  from  primary  schools  on  could  teach  Spanish 
and  English  at  the  same  time,  in  order  to  prepare  our  youth  to  read 
the  news,  to  familiarize  themselves  with  books  and  periodicals  in  both 
of  the  great  languages  of  the  New  World,  and  to  be  able  to  know  the 

133 


134  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

history,  geography,  the  customs,  and  traditions  of  the  countries  on 
this  continent. 

Mexico  is  making  every  effort  to  accelerate  education.  Our  gov- 
ernment is  increasing  the  number  of  schools  in  every  state  of  the 
Mexican  Republic,  giving  special  attention  to  primary  and  agricultural 
schools.  Much  has  been  done  in  the  last  decade  to  reduce  illiteracy, 
and  we  Mexicans  are  proud  to  say  that  education  in  Mexico  is  being 
developed  efficiently.  Normal  schools  prepare  a  great  number  of 
teachers  annually;  the  National  University  of  Mexico,  one  of  the  oldest 
in  America,  and  all  our  other  universities  are  in  the  forefront  of  the 
battle. 

Mexico  City  should  be  considered  by  the  universities  and  colleges 
of  this  marvelous  country  as  a  place  of  meeting  with  the  universities 
and  colleges  of  the  other  Americas  to  confer  on  establishing  standards 
which  would  bring  good  results  to  all.  The  Ohio  State  University  is 
already  familiar  with  some  of  the  educational  facilities  Mexico  has 
to  offer. 

Again  I  express  my  gratitude  for  the  invitation  to  share  with  you 
this  momentous  occasion,  and  I  leave  with  you  the  greetings  of  the 
people  of  the  Republic  of  Mexico  along  with  my  personal  wishes  for 
your  everlasting  prosperity. 


GREETINGS  FROM  THE  BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES 

By  Donald  C.  Power 

Tonight's  dinner  is  a  culmination  of  the  formal  celebration  of 
the  seventy-fifth  anniversary  of  the  founding  of  The  Ohio 
State  University.  I  am  certain  that  all  of  us  here,  as  well  as 
thousands  of  the  University's  sons  and  daughters  everywhere,  have 
rejoiced  in  this  occasion.  Yesterday,  as  I  stood  on  the  steps  of  old  Uni- 
versity Hall,  where  The  Ohio  State  University  had  its  physical  begin- 
ning, and  looked  across  the  present  campus,  I  experienced  a  feeling  of 
great  pride  in  our  University.  As  far  as  the  eye  could  reach,  there  were 
fine  buildings.  Everywhere  there  was  evidence  of  the  new  building 
construction  now  in  progress  which,  according  to  the  present  building 
program,  will  aggregate  upwards  of  $25,000,000. 

These  are  great  days  for  this  University.  A  generous  grant  by  the 
legislature  for  the  expansion  of  the  physical  plant,  some  $22,000,000  in 
all,  was  matched  by  the  Ninety-Seventh  General  Assembly  with  an 
unparalleled  amount  of  $24,491,000  for  operation  of  the  plant.  No 
private  university  in  America  has  an  endowment  that  will  produce 
that  kind  of  an  income.  This  spring  one  of  our  most  satisfying  acts 
as  trustees  was  to  approve  President  Bevis'  recommendation  for  new 
floors  under  faculty  salaries.  Thus,  we  have  been  able  not  only  to 
increase  our  teaching  staff  to  meet  the  demands  of  an  unprecedented 
enrollment  but  also  we  have  been  able  to  maintain  the  high  quality 
of  our  personnel  and  to  attract  some  of  the  best  people  in  the  country 
to  the  various  fields  of  economic  and  educational  research.  The  con- 
tinuance of  such  a  program  will  enable  us  to  do  a  constantly  better 
job  in  the  teaching  and  research  fields;  the  quality  of  accomplishment 
in  these  fields  is  the  real  test  of  any  university. 

Many  of  you  alumni  from  different  parts  of  the  nation  are  thrilled 
with  the  rapidity  with  which  our  new  buildings  are  going  up.  Soon, 
as  our  President  says,  we  shall  have  so  many  holes  in  the  campus  that 
a  lantern  will  be  recommended  if  you  travel  around  at  night.  How 
happy  are  we  to  see  the  new  music  building  so  far  along.  The  con- 
tractors are  about  to  pour  footings  for  the  new  physics  building.   The 

135 


136  SEVElSfTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

medical  center  is  ready  for  the  second  floor.  The  service  building  will 
be  completed  this  spring.  And  very  soon,  construction  will  begin  on 
the  addition  to  the  commerce  building.  Some  time  next  year  present 
plans  anticipate  a  new  five-million-dollar  Student  Union  building.  But 
we  are  proudest  of  all  of  the  plans  for  the  library  which  will  add  an 
addition  costing  two  and  one-half  million  dollars  to  that  building 
which  is  the  very  heart  of  our  University.  In  all,  present  expansion 
plans  will  almost  double  the  present  investment  in  the  physical  plant 
which  it  took  seventy-five  years  to  accomplish. 

All  these  evidences  of  growth  and  development  are  gratifying. 
So  interested  have  the  trustees  become  in  this  program  that  in  addition 
to  our  monthly  meetings  of  the  past  several  years,  we  have  been  giving 
three  solid  days  to  a  summer  meeting  in  which  we  have  dreamed  some 
dreams  for  the  next  twenty-five  years  of  this  University.  Yes,  it  is  now 
to  the  future  that  we  must  all  look;  we  have  done  well  in  the  past 
years  but  we  must  grow,  progress,  and  do  better.  The  attitude  of  the 
Board  of  Trustees  with  respect  to  the  university  of  tomorrow  was 
apdy  expressed  by  our  most  renowned  member,  Charles  F.  Kettering, 
when  he  said,  "I'm  interested  in  the  future  because  that  is  where 
I  expect  to  spend  the  rest  of  my  time." 

I  am  sorry  that  all  of  you  have  not  had  our  opportunity  to  become 
familiar  with  the  plans  for  the  future.  Those  plans  are  large  and  call 
for  a  literal  rebuilding  of  much  of  our  present  campus.  Of  course, 
conditions  from  time  to  time  may  necessitate  the  changing  or  modifi- 
cation of  those  plans,  but  the  important  thing  is  that  we  do  have  plans 
which  have  been  reduced  to  writing  and  will  serve  as  a  guide  to  chart 
our  future  course.  It  has  been  said  that  there  were  times  in  the  past 
when  the  University  did  not  know  where  it  would  plant  the  next 
bush.  Today,  I  assure  you  we  have  definite  ideas  as  to  where  each  bush 
and  building  will  be  placed  for  several  years  to  come. 

On  this  seventy-fifth  anniversary  of  the  founding  of  The  Ohio 
State  University  let  us  pause  to  reflect  on  what  is  past,  but  then  let  us 
resolve  henceforth  to  put  all  our  energies  and  abilities  toward  the 
realization  of  present  hopes  and  ambitions  for  a  glorious  university 
of  tomorrow.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  seventy-fifth  anniversary  could 
have  come  at  a  time  more  propitious  for  celebration.   I  am  sure  that 


GREETINGS   FROM   THE   BOARD   OF   TRUSTEES  I37 

many  of  you  have  glowed  with  pride  at  the  fine  compliments  paid 
this  institution  by  the  scholars,  the  scientists,  and  educators  who  are 
honoring  us  with  their  presence  during  our  time  of  self-congratulations. 
Let  us  assure  you  that  none  of  you  have  smiled  more  brightly  at  these 
generous  comments  than  your  trustees  Herbert  S.  Atkinson,  General 
Carlton  S.  Dargusch,  Charles  F,  Kettering,  James  F.  Lincoln,  Warner 
M.  Pomerene,  Lockwood  Thompson,  and  myself.  There  are  times 
when  even  trusteeship  can  be  an  unmitigated  pleasure,  and  this  happy 
birthday  party  is  one  of  them. 


SCIENCE  AND  SECURITY 
By  Karl  Taylor  Compton 

THERE  arc  many  reasons  I  deem  it  a  privilege  to  be  here  on  this 
occasion.  In  the  first  place  it  gives  me  a  personal  opportunity 
to  bring  to  The  Ohio  State  University  greetings  from  the  Mas- 
sachusetts Institute  of  Technology  which  is  only  a  few  years  older  than 
your  institution. 

In  the  second  place,  I  am  very  happy  to  appear  again  on  the  same 
platform  with  President  Bevis.  A  year  and  a  half  ago  we  and  our 
wives  went  on  a  barnstorming  expedition  to  Hawaii  to  participate  in 
the  fortieth  anniversary  celebration  of  that  young,  very  interesting 
institution.  I  think  neither  of  us  ever  had  a  more  delightful  time  or 
made  so  many  speeches  within  a  period  of  two  weeks.  How  either 
we  or  our  audiences  survived  I  shall  never  understand,  but  the  trip 
did  give  me  a  much  valued  opportunity  to  become  acquainted  with 
and  to  admire  the  fine  personal  and  intellectual  qualities  of  your 
president. 

My  third  reason  is  also  a  personal  one  and  goes  more  than  half-way 
back  in  your  history.  As  an  Ohio  boy  I  naturally  had  many  contacts 
with  The  Ohio  State  University.  I  think  the  first  of  these  was  when 
I  used  to  hear  my  father  tell  about  the  delightful  meetings  of  the 
Rhodes  Scholarship  Committee  in  the  home  of  your  President  Thomp- 
son; father  always  came  back  with  great  praise  and  admiration  for 
that  educator  and  Christian  gentleman.  Only  recently  retired  from 
your  staff  is  Lynn  W.  St.  John,  who  served  you  as  director  of  athletics 
and  professor  of  physical  education,  but  who  earlier  was  my  coach  in 
baseball  and  football  during  my  college  days  at  Wooster.  He  probably 
had  more  to  do  than  any  other  person  except  my  parents  with  the 
molding  of  my  character;  and  such  faults  of  character  or  training  as 
persist  are  there  in  spite  of  his  influence,  not  because  of  it. 

If  I  could  remember  chemical  equations  and  molecular  structures 
as  vividly  as  I  can  remember  some  of  the  baseball  and  football  games 
in  the  period  just  following  the  introduction  of  the  forward  pass,  I 
perhaps  might  have  been  a  great  chemist.    If  by  any  chance  in  this 

138 


SCIENCE   AND   SECURITY  139 

audience  there  are  certain  gentlemen — I  cannot  remember  them  all, 
but  I  remember  "Rink"  Harrington,  a  great  quarterback  and  shortstop; 
Bryce,  another  quarterback;  Jim  Lincoln,  a  tackle  who  was  just  as  fast 
as  he  was  big;  Schorey,  a  halfback;  Schachtel,  Lawrence,  and  Postle 
(a  pitcher) — if  any  of  those  men  or  their  teammates  are  in  this  audi- 
ence, my  compliments  and  best  wishes. 

For  all  these  reasons  which  I  have  mentioned,  you  can  well  under- 
stand with  what  warm  personal  feelings  I  appear  before  you  tonight. 
But  let  me  proceed  to  the  more  serious  part  of  my  discourse. 

WE  ARE  living  in  a  troubled  world,  full  of  intricate  and  unsolved 
problems  which  are  our  heritage  from  World  War  II  and  are 
enhanced  by  conflicting  ideologies  and  by  the  reluctance  of  great 
groups  of  people  to  make  the  sacrifices  necessary  either  to  ameliorate 
or  to  control  the  situation.  We  in  America  want  protection  of  our 
lives,  our  property,  and  our  own  business.  We  also  want  peoples  in 
other  lands  to  be  protected  from  aggression — this  partly  from  general 
humanitarian  motives  of  sympathy  and  friendship,  and  partly  for  the 
reason  that  if  other  peoples  are  subject  to  aggression,  so,  sooner  or 
later,  may  we  be.  For  such  reasons  we  the  people  want  security. 

In  the  report  of  the  President's  Advisory  Commission  on  Universal 
Training,  made  in  May  of  last  year,  this  Commission  analyzed  some 
of  the  more  important  factors  which  can  promote  security.  It  stated 
that  "at  the  root  of  all  the  Commission's  thinking  is  the  conviction  that 
the  only  real  security  for  this  country  or  any  country  lies  in  the 
abolition  of  war  through  the  establishment  of  a  reign  of  law  among 
nations."  It  pointed  out  that  the  United  Nations  is  the  embodiment 
of  our  hopes  for  a  durable  peace  based  on  justice  and  co-operation, 
rather  than  violence  and  death.  The  Commission  declared  that  we 
must  in  every  way  support  the  United  Nations  in  its  efforts  to  achieve 
this  goal,  but  we  must  admit  that  the  going  is  slow  and  rough  and 
that  for  the  time  being  at  any  rate  it  behooves  our  country  to  take 
supplementary  steps  to  maintain  its  security. 

Among  these  steps  our  Commission  emphasized  the  following:  a 
strong,  healthy,  educated  population;  a  healthy  economy  reflected  in 
full  production,  full  employment,  and  industrial  peace;  a  high  general 


140 


SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 


level  of  education  throughout  the  country;  improved  physical  and 
mental  health;  and  an  understanding  of  democracy  with  an  increased 
feeling  of  personal  responsibility  on  the  part  of  every  individual  for 
making  democracy  work  as  a  co-operative  enterprise. 

Furthermore,  the  Commission  recognized  the  need  of  a  co-ord- 
inated intelligence  service,  of  industrial  mobilization  and  stock-piling, 
of  a  strengthening  of  the  regular  Armed  Forces  and  unification  of 
their  command,  of  universal  military  training,  and  of  a  vigorous  pro- 
gram of  scientific  research  and  development. 

Thus  there  are  many  factors  involved  in  a  full  program  for 
national  security.  The  most  important  of  all  factors,  "good  will  among 
men,"  is  a  goal  which  we  can  all  strive  for,  but  unfortunately  it  is  not 
a  goal  which  we  have  under  our  exclusive  control.  Some  of  the  other 
factors,  however,  are  under  our  own  control,  and  among  them  is  the 
influence  of  science  on  our  security.  This  influence  can  be  developed 
in  two  ways:  first,  by  the  contributions  of  science  to  health  and  to  a 
sound  industrial  and  agricultural  economy;  and  second,  by  the  con- 
tributions of  science  to  the  arts  of  defensive  or  offensive  warfare  which 
have  become  of  such  terrific  significance.  In  both  of  these  aspects  of 
science  as  a  contributor  to  security,  we  have  many  causes  for  satisfaction 
and  some  reasons  for  concern.  Let  me  mention  some  of  them. 

We  have  now  a  far  greater  public  awareness  than  ever  before  of 
the  value  of  pure  and  applied  science  to  our  economy.  Many  facts 
demonstrate  this.  One  is  found  in  the  budgets  for  scientific  research 
in  our  universities.  I  have  no  up-to-date,  over-all  figures  on  this  item, 
but  I  know  that  our  higher  educational  institutions  were  spending 
about  thirty  million  dollars  a  year  on  research  just  before  the  war,  and 
I  believe  the  figure  is  now  double  that,  though  a  large  part  of  it  is  now 
coming  through  government  contracts  and  industrial  grants. 

On  the  industrial  research  side  are  the  following  figures  which  are 
found  in  a  recent  bulletin  from  Stanford  Research  Institute.  In  1915 
there  were  100  industrial  research  laboratories,  employing  3,000  people; 
in  1920  there  were  300  laboratories,  employing  9,300  people;  in  1946 
there  were  2,500  laboratories,  employing  133,500  people.  The  annual 
research  and  development  expenditures  by  industry,  as  listed  in  the 
Steelman  Report,  Science  and  Public  Policy,  increased  from  $116,000,000 


SCIENCE   AND   SECURITY  I4I 

in  1930  to  $234,000,000  in  1940,  and  are  expected  to  reach  $500,000,000 
in  1950. 

Governmental  expenditures  for  research  and  development  were 
$67,000,000  in  1940,  and  will  probably  be  about  $500,000,000  in  1950, 
according  to  the  Steelman  Report.  Furthermore,  in  the  last  two  suc- 
cessive years.  Congress  has  almost  passed  legislation  to  estabhsh  a 
National  Science  Foundation,  in  recognition  of  the  importance  to  our 
country  of  a  considerably  accelerated  program  of  scientific  research 
which  will  go  beyond  the  capacity  or  present  willingness  of  private 
organizations  or  individuals  to  carry  the  full  financial  responsibiHty. 

It  is  significant  that  in  public  discussions  in  the  press,  in  Congress, 
or  by  national  leaders,  while  there  may  be  disagreement  on  most  other 
national  policies,  there  seems  to  be  no  disagreement  with  the  thesis 
that  the  strength  and  welfare  of  our  country  require  an  active  program 
of  research  to  discover  new  knowledge  and  a  program  of  development 
to  apply  this  knowledge  to  meet  human  needs. 

One  of  the  most  heartening  factors  recently  has  been  the  "new 
look"  which  many  important  industries  are  giving  to  their  own  oppor- 
tunities and  responsibihties  for  support  of  scientific  education  and 
research  in  universities.  Some  companies  have  adopted  extensive  pro- 
grams of  scholarships  and  fellowships;  others  have  been  contributing 
generously  to  meet  the  new  scientific  and  engineering  needs  of  our 
educational  institutions.  Many  large  industrial  organizations  have 
appointed  committees  of  their  operating  officers  to  review  the  question 
of  the  company's  role  in  these  matters  and  to  make  appropriate  recom- 
mendations for  more  liberal  policies.  All  are  simultaneously  enlarging 
their  own  internal  research  activities. 

In  listing  these  various  lines  of  favorable  evidence  I  should  also 
emphasize  the  actions  which  have  been  taken  by  many  state  legislatures 
to  provide  new  capital  facilities  and  increased  operating  funds  to  enable 
their  state  universities  to  play  their  appropriate  role  in  this  increasingly 
scientific  era. 

All  this  is  far  from  saying  that  the  needs  and  opportunities  in 
science  have  been  completely  met.  For  example,  the  institution  which 
I  serve  estimates  that  $20,000,000  of  new  capital  facilities  of  buildings, 
laboratories,  and  equipment,  plus  $10,000,000  of  additional  endowment 


142  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

or  its  equivalent,  represent  our  present  really  urgent  need  for  things 
which  are  necessary  to  keep  up  with  the  field  of  technological  develop- 
ments and  to  carry  on  the  scientific  projects  which  are  now  clearly 
defined:  $10,000,000  of  this  has  recently  been  raised;  $20,000,000  is  still 
needed.  I  know  that  a  similar  situation,  on  a  larger  or  a  smaller  scale, 
now  confronts  all  of  our  institutions  of  higher  education. 

On  the  military  side  the  story  is  very  similar.  More  funds  and 
more  activity  are  found  in  research  and  development  than  ever  before 
in  peace-time.  For  over-all  co-ordination,  study,  and  direction  there 
has  been  established  a  Research  and  Development  Board,  operating 
directly  under  the  Secretary  of  Defense.  In  the  postwar  effort  to  cut 
down  expenses  of  the  military  establishment,  scientific  research  and 
development  were  treated  with  especial  generosity.  I  have  heard  it 
claimed,  though  I  cannot  vouch  for  the  literal  accuracy  of  the  state- 
ment, that  the  Congress  has  never  cut  a  requested  appropriation  for 
research  for  the  Armed  Services.  Such  cuts  as  have  been  made  in  the 
estimates  of  needs  have  been  made  by  the  Executive  Department  and 
not  by  Congress.  This  is  certainly  true  in  general,  although  there  may 
be  exceptions,  and  I  think  it  is  significant  as  an  indication  of  popular 
recognition  of  the  role  of  science  in  our  security. 

Also  new  in  this  whole  picture  is  the  tremendous  atomic-energy 
program,  financed  almost  completely  by  public  funds,  operated  prin- 
cipally by  industrial  companies  or  educational  institutions  under  the 
over-all  planning  and  supervision  of  the  Atomic  Energy  Commission. 
The  stakes  here  are  tremendous  for  either  peace  or  war.  Undoubtedly 
the  potential  development  of  atomic  energy  is  still  in  its  infancy.  Some 
one  has  described  our  present  status  of  atomic  power  as  about  equiv- 
alent to  that  of  steam  power  when  James  Watt  first  noticed  that  the 
steam  Hfted  the  lid  on  his  mother's  teakettle. 

BUT  over  and  beyond  the  considerations  of  security  which  involve 
concentration  on  problems  of  the  near  future — problems  like  full 
employment  for  security  of  jobs,  business  prosperity  for  security  of 
standards  of  living,  and  military  preparedness  in  these  troubled  times 
for  security  against  international  aggression — there  is  another  aspect 
of  security  which  is  beginning  to  loom  on  the  horizon.  It  is  a  long-term 


SCIENCE   AND   SECURITY  I43 

problem  which  affects  the  entire  human  race  and  which  is  causing 
great  anxiety  among  the  relatively  few  who  have  given  expert  thought 
to  the  problem.  I  refer  to  the  problem  created  by  rapidly  increasing 
populations  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  the  steady  exhaustion  of  those 
natural  resources  of  soil,  minerals,  and  fresh  water  on  which  the  human 
race  depends  for  its  existence.  Books  like  Fairfield  Osborn's  Our 
Plundered  Planet  are  beginning  to  portray  the  stark  inevitability  of  a 
catastrophe  which  may  not  be  many  generations  off  unless  some  very 
strenuous  measures  are  taken  to  prevent  it.  We  already  know,  for 
example,  that  approximately  one-third  of  the  soil  fertility  of  our  United 
States  has  been  lost  by  erosion  or  by  failure  to  replenish  in  the  soil 
those  essential  elements  which  are  extracted  from  it  by  repeated  crops. 
We  know  that  this  is  the  process  which  was  basically  responsible  for 
the  decline  and  fall  of  ancient  empires  in  Egypt  and  the  Middle  East. 
We  know  that  it  is  presently  a  desperate  problem  in  the  highly  popu- 
lated and  long  inhabited  areas  of  Asia.  We  know  that  there  is  very 
little  leeway  in  the  future  for  meeting  this  problem  by  the  discovery 
and  exploitation  of  presently  primitive  areas.  I  have  been  told,  just  to 
take  one  example,  that  the  supply  of  lead  which  is  believed  to  be 
economically  available  will  be  exhausted  within  about  ten  years  at  the 
present  rate  of  consumption.  There  has  been  extraordinary  success  in 
the  discovery  of  new  oil  fields,  but  we  all  know  that  this  cannot  con- 
tinue forever.  Even  the  present  populations  and  the  demands  of  our 
modern  civilization  for  fresh  water  are  exhausting  the  supply  more 
rapidly  than  it  is  replenished  over  very  large  areas  of  our  own  country. 

This  is  probably  the  most  important  fundamental  problem  which 
is  facing  the  human  race.  It  is  partly  a  sociological  and  partly  a  political 
problem,  but  it  is  equally  importantly  a  scientific  problem  because  basic 
to  any  social  or  political  actions,  must  be  scientific  analyses  of  the 
problem,  the  technological  development  of  substitutes  for  depleted 
materials,  and  the  discovery  of  methods  for  using  those  materials  which 
we  still  have  far  more  intelligently  and  efficiently  than  they  are  being 
used  at  present.  One  person  has  expressed  this  problem  by  saying  that 
"it  is  no  longer  a  question  of  natural  resources  but  of  intelligent 
resourcefulness." 

Therefore  while  we  are  immersed  in  a  consideration  of  our  present 


144  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

economic,  political,  and  international  problems,  and  concerned  with 
our  security  on  all  of  these  fronts,  there  looms  in  the  background  with 
an  importance  which  becomes  greater  with  the  passage  of  every  year, 
this  greatest  of  security  problems  and  of  challenges  to  science — namely, 
the  ultimate  safety  of  the  human  race  and  the  threat  of  its  decline, 
even  down  to  the  stage  of  a  bare  struggle  for  existence  on  this  planet. 

What  I  have  said  about  the  significance  of  science  to  our  economy 
and  to  our  military  security  is  well  known.  I  have  mentioned  these 
points  only  for  background  and  for  emphasis  on  their  importance. 
Let  me  speak  now  of  the  other  side  of  the  picture.  What  are  some  of 
the  things,  other  than  lack  of  funds  adequate  for  the  work  in  sight, 
which  are  standing  in  the  way  of  our  abiUty  quickly  to  reap  the 
potential  benefits  from  science.'* 

The  first  of  these  limiting  factors  is  the  shortage  of  qualified 
scientists  to  carry  on  effectively  the  research  programs  which  can  now 
be  clearly  outlined,  and  of  adequately  competent  development  engi- 
neers to  carry  forward  the  desirable  practical  appUcations  based  on  this 
scientific  progress.  The  field  of  nuclear  science  and  atomic  energy  is 
the  most  outstanding  example  of  this  shortage.  There  are  exciting  new 
developments  in  the  field  of  medicine  and  nutrition  which  present 
clear  opportunities  far  beyond  the  ability  of  the  men  presently  trained 
in  these  fields  to  exploit  promptly.  Many  other  examples  might  be 
cited.  This  is  a  limitation  of  which  our  educational  institutions  are 
acutely  aware  because  we  encounter  it  in  our  attempts  to  recruit  ade- 
quate teaching  staffs;  we  also  encounter  it  in  the  demands  which  are 
made  upon  us  by  industrial  and  governmental  organizations  to  recom- 
mend graduates  competently  prepared  to  undertake  the  various  tasks 
in  the  governmental  and  industrial  development  programs.  This 
shortage  of  trained  personnel  was  illustrated  by  the  case  of  a  young 
man  at  our  institution  who  recently  received  a  doctor's  degree.  With- 
out any  sohcitation,  he  received  more  than  forty  oflfers  of  jobs.  If  there 
had  been  forty  men  similarly  trained,  all  of  them  could  have  had  jobs. 

Much  is  being  done  to  meet  this  emergency.  The  fact  that  our 
educational  institutions  are  crowded  to  capacity  is  one  bit  of  evidence. 
The  way  in  which  various  governmental  agencies  like  the  Atomic 
Energy  Commission  and  the  Office  of  Naval  Research,  as  well  as 


SCIENCE   AND   SECURITY  I45 

various  forward-looking  industries,  are  making  funds  available  to 
our  educational  institutions  for  research,  permits  these  institutions  to 
employ  promising  young  men  and  thereby  not  only  to  carry  on  the 
desired  research,  but  in  the  same  process  to  develop  a  more  numerous 
group  of  highly  qualified  scientific  workers.  This  is  one  of  the  most 
encouraging  aspects  of  the  present  situation. 

In  spite  of  these  favorable  factors,  however,  we  are  not  meeting 
the  demand  as  effectively  as  we  might.  Many  of  our  educational 
institutions  are  limited  seriously  in  what  they  can  do  by  the  lack  of 
major  facilities  which  are  necessary  to  tackle  effectively  the  problems 
in  some  of  the  newly  developing  technological  fields.  On  the  human 
side,  as  distinct  from  physical  facilities,  many  surveys  have  indicated 
that  we  are  failing  to  give  adequate  educational  opportunity  to  a  very 
sizable  portion  of  our  population  which  is  quaHfied  to  take  advantage 
of  these  opportunities. 

This  point  has  been  strongly  emphasized,  for  example,  by  my 
friend.  President  James  B.  Conant  of  Harvard  University,  in  his 
appeal  for  education  in  a  "classless  society."  He  calls  attention  to 
the  substantial  portion  of  our  secondary-school  graduates  who  have 
the  undoubted  ability  to  profit  by  a  higher  education  but  who  are 
prevented  from  doing  so  either  for  financial  reasons  or  because  of  a 
narrow  perspective  of  opportunity,  and  he  points  out  that  all  such 
cases  represent  definite  failures  to  utilize  effectively  our  potential 
human  resources. 

If  we  go  back  of  higher  education  and  consider  the  universal 
problem  of  our  public  schools,  we  realize  how  imperfect  is  our  effort 
to  educate  our  youth  along  the  lines  of  the  very  great  concept  of  public 
education.  When  a  town  dog-catcher  or  comfort-station  attendant 
commands  a  salary  higher  than  that  of  a  public  school  teacher,  and 
when  a  very  substantial  portion  of  our  public  school  teachers  have  to 
be  engaged  on  an  emergency  substandard  basis  because  of  lack  of 
applicants  with  full  qualifications,  we  realize  that  the  utilization  of 
personnel  in  the  interests  of  our  over-all  economy  and  security  leaves 
much  to  be  desired.  The  development  of  scientists  and  technologists 
is  only  one  part  of  this  more  general  educational  problem,  but  it  is  an 
important  part  and  at  the  present  time  it  is  one  of  the  "bottlenecks." 


146  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

I  have  called  attention  to  some  of  the  limiting  factors  which  stand 
in  the  way  of  the  most  effective  possible  utilization  of  science  for  the 
insurance  of  our  security.  Funds,  facilities,  and  personnel  are  all 
intimately  related  aspects  of  this  limitation,  and  I  think  it  is  clear  that 
the  removal  of  these  limitations  depends  in  the  last  analysis  on  public 
understanding  of  the  matter  and  on  a  sufficiently  alert  interest  in  these 
problems  to  bring  about  those  actions  which  will  permit  their  better 
solution.  These  actions  involve  primarily  two  things:  more  adequate 
and  more  permanently  assured  financial  support  on  the  one  hand,  and 
a  pubhc  concern  which  will  give  increased  opportunity,  prestige,  and 
attractiveness  to  the  educational,  scientific,  and  engineering  professions 
on  the  other  hand. 

IN  CONCLUSION,  I  should  like  to  discuss  the  subject  of  science  and 
security  from  quite  another  angle,  an  angle  based  on  an  under- 
standing of  what  security  means  when  used  in  the  narrow  miUtary 
sense. 

At  all  times,  and  especially  in  time  of  war,  it  is  necessary  to  main- 
tain a  high  degree  of  secrecy  in  certain  matters  which,  if  known  to 
the  enemy,  would  give  him  an  advantage  and  put  us  at  a  disadvantage. 
This  secrecy  applies,  of  course,  to  all  types  of  military  planning  and 
operations.  Because  of  the  enormously  increased  importance  of  modern 
scientific  developments  as  applied  to  warfare,  this  secrecy  has  also  been 
very  important  in  connection  with  the  design  and  contemplated  use 
and  even  the  very  existence  of  new  weapons.  The  atomic  bomb  is  the 
outstanding  recent  example,  but  there  are  many  others  such  as  the 
possibilities  of  bacteriological  warfare,  new  types  of  airplanes,  new 
methods  of  detection  and  destruction  of  enemy  planes  or  submarines, 
various  types  of  countermeasures  against  possible  enemy  actions,  and 
the  like.  I  think  no  one  can  properly  question  the  justification  and 
high  importance  of  maintaining  adequate  secrecy  on  these  points.  This 
fact  has  been  so  well  recognized  that  in  military  parlance  and  often 
in  the  public  mind  the  words  "security"  and  "secrecy"  are  used  synon- 
ymously. What  I  wish  now  to  discuss  is  the  relationship  between 
security  and  secrecy,  with  especial  reference  to  scientific  developments 
which  may  be  of  military  importance. 


SCIENCE   AND   SECURITY  147 

There  are  two  aspects  of  security,  just  as  there  are  the  two  aspects 
of  warfare  which  we  call  offensive  and  defensive.  While  defensive 
measures  and  precautions  have  to  be  taken,  it  is  a  generally  recognized 
principle  that  a  strong  offense  is  the  best  defense.  An  analogous  prin- 
ciple applies,  I  believe,  in  the  matter  of  security. 

Our  security  in  technological  matters  having  to  do  with  warfare 
rests  fundamentally  on  our  being  as  far  as  possible  ahead  of  our 
unfriendly  competitor.  To  be  in  this  favorable  position  we  should 
prevent  our  competitor  from  learning  our  secrets,  which  is  the  defen- 
sive aspect,  and  we  should  work  actively  to  make  significant  advances 
in  our  own  technology,  which  is  the  offensive  aspect.  Neither  of  these 
should  be  neglected.  It  is  evident  that  if  we  proceeded  actively  with 
our  technological  developments  but  at  the  same  time  published  them 
broadcast  everywhere,  we  would  permit  our  competitor  to  keep  pace 
with  us  at  relatively  little  cost  to  himself.  At  the  other  extreme,  if  we 
should  simply  sit  tight  and  hold  on  to  our  secrets,  it  would  not  be 
long  before  our  competitor  had  forged  ahead  of  us.  Somewhere  be- 
tween these  two  extremes  is  the  best  procedure — and  by  best  I  mean 
the  procedure  which  will  give  us  the  most  advantageous  relative 
position. 

Unfortunately  in  this  case  secrecy  and  progress  are  mutually 
inimical,  as  is  true  of  all  progress  in  science  whether  for  military 
purposes  or  otherwise.  Science  flourishes  and  progresses  in  an  atmos- 
phere of  free  inquiry  and  free  interchange  of  ideas,  and  under  the 
continual  mutual  stimulation  of  active  minds  working  in  the  same 
and  related  fields.  Any  element  of  secrecy  which  is  imposed  on  this 
activity  acts  like  a  brake  to  progress.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  most 
advantageous  path  between  these  two  extremes  of  secrecy  and  progress 
is  difficult  to  define,  and  because  of  this  difficulty  I  believe  there  is 
much  confusion  in  public  thinking  on  the  subject.  It  is  much  easier 
for  the  average  citizen  to  understand  secrecy  than  it  is  for  him  to 
understand  the  conditions  necessary  to  scientific  progress. 

It  is  probably  for  this  reason,  among  others,  that  there  is  such  a 
furore  at  the  present  time  about  the  possible  leaks  of  secrets;  all  who 
are  closely  concerned  with  our  scientific  progress  in  military  affairs  are 
aware  of  the  fact  that  the  results  of  this  pubHcity  and  of  some  pro- 


148  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

cedures  of  official  investigating  groups  have  had  seriously  detrimental 
effects  on  our  progress  toward  security  through  scientific  research  and 
development.  It  would  be  better,  I  believe,  to  take  the  carefully  calcu- 
lated risk  of  allowing  some  confidential  information  to  get  out  of  our 
hands,  if  such  a  policy  would  enable  us  to  advance  our  own  science 
and  art  at  a  more  rapid  rate  than  a  competitor  could  hope  to  equal, 
than  to  impose  by  regulations  or  public  opinion  a  condition  which 
seriously  handicaps  progress  by  rendering  employment  in  these  pursuits 
definitely  unattractive  to  top-flight  scientists  and  engineers  who  have 
plenty  of  other  opportunities  to  turn  their  talents  into  more  comfortable 
and  usually  more  productive  activities. 

I  am  one  of  the  large  group  of  scientists  and  engineers  who  are 
strong  advocates  of  national  miUtary  preparedness  at  this  time  but  who 
are  greatly  worried  over  the  detrimental  effects  on  our  work  for 
technological  preparedness  of  the  barrage  of  publicity  regarding  alleged 
espionage  and  of  the  charges  which  have  been  made  against  reputable 
scientists  on  the  basis  of  hearsay  and  unsubstantial  evidence.  I  confess 
that  when  I  read  what  appears  in  the  papers  about  some  of  these  cases 
I  generally  get  the  impression  that  the  cases  are  very  serious  indeed 
and  that  the  individuals  concerned  are  very  bad  actors.  This  may 
actually  be  true  in  some  cases.  What  bothers  me,  however,  is  that  in 
the  cases  of  individuals  whom  I  have  known  personally  and  intimately 
over  many  years,  my  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  men  and  of 
the  circumstances  on  which  the  charges  are  based  convinces  me  of  the 
very  flimsy  nature  of  these  charges  and  of  the  great  injustice  which  is 
being  done  to  the  individuals  concerned.  I  am  only  one  of  many 
hundreds,  and  perhaps  thousands,  of  scientists  who  find  themselves  in 
this  situation. 

WHAT  is  most  needed  is  to  recapture  in  the  public  mind,  and  in 
the  attitudes  of  the  scientists  who  must  do  the  jobs  at  hand,  that 
spirit  of  confidence  in  and  enthusiasm  for  their  work  with  which  we 
emerged  from  the  war.  At  that  time  the  pubhc  very  properly  ap- 
plauded and  supported  the  remarkable  technological  achievements 
which  played  so  important  a  role  in  our  victory.  The  scientists  had 
great  personal  satisfaction  in  having  been  able  to  contribute  thus 
substantially  to  our  national  effort.  If  that  spirit  is  maintained  we  shall 


SCIENCE   AND  SECURITY  I49 

make  great  progress  toward  the  further  contributions  of  science  to  our 
national  security.  If  the  recent  trend  of  suspicion  and  lowering  morale 
continues  we  shall  be  in  really  serious  danger. 

Some  of  these  points  were  strongly  emphasized  by  one  of  the  men 
who  is  most  responsible  for  our  security  through  science,  David  E. 
Lilienthal,  chairman  of  the  Atomic  Energy  Commission.  In  his 
address  before  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of 
Science  on  September  i6,  he  said: 

First:  America's  leadership  in  this  new  and  fateful  field  of  knowledge 
requires  a  stupendous  effort.  The  notion  that  our  atomic  energy  leadership 
depends  upon  a  "secret  formula,"  locked  in  a  vault,  is  nothing  less  than  a 
gigantic  hoax  upon  the  people  of  this  country. 

Our  leadership  depends  upon  developing  new  knowledge,  and  the  new 
applications  of  that  knowledge.  Guards,  and  fences,  and  investigators — all 
these  have  a  place,  an  important  place.  But  guards  and  fences  and  investi- 
gators do  not  develop  new  knowledge  about  atomic  energy,  nor  new  appli- 
cations of  knowledge.  And  our  position  in  the  world  and  our  progress  in 
this  field  requires  that  we  know  more  and  more,  and  that  we  know  it  first. 

I  recognize  that  for  a  long  time  there  has  been  a  reluctance  to  enter 
Government  service,  for  a  variety  of  reasons  which  have  been  discussed 
many  times.  But  that  service  has  now  taken  on  an  extra,  an  added  un- 
attractiveness,  an  added  disability:  the  risk  of  undeserved  injury  to  a  man's 
good  name,  his  professional  standing  and  his  peace  of  mind  through 
anonymous  vilification,  through  attacks  from  what  may  be  petty  or  preju- 
diced or  malevolent  sources. 

Piled  on  top  of  all  the  other  familiar  disabilities  of  public  employment, 
this  often  makes  work  for  the  Government  appear  as  something  to  be 
shunned.  Public  employment  has  become,  in  a  very  real  sense,  a  hazardous 
occupation.  The  possibility  of  public  pillory,  so  often  unjustified  and 
beyond  immediate  redress,  does  indeed  cast  a  shadow  of  fear  over  public 
service.  The  growing  concern  of  scientific  and  technical  and  managerial 
people  is  evident  on  every  hand.  The  trend  shows  that  as  between  private 
industry,  educational  institutions,  and  Government,  Government  is  re- 
garded as  the  least  desirable  employer  by  most  scientists.  Leading  scientific 
and  technical  people  have  warned  that  the  sources  of  talent  are  being  closed 
to  Government.^ 

^"Public  Employment  or  Public  Pillory?"  Bulletin  of  the  Atomic  Scientists,  IV 
(October,  1948),  pp.  293-94. 


150  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

These  words  of  David  Lilienthal  express  better  and  more  author- 
itatively than  any  words  of  mine  the  problem  which  I  have  been 
discussing.  It  is  desperately  important  in  this  period  of  international 
uncertainty  that  the  present  trend  be  reversed  and  that  the  work  of 
scientists  and  others  who  are  engaged  in  efforts  to  promote  our  national 
security  should  again  have  the  public  support  and  commendation 
which  they  deservedly  received  at  the  end  of  the  war  when  the  public 
was  made  aware  of  their  great  contributions  to  our  victory.  Only  then 
will  the  people  who  are  so  much  needed  in  this  work  and  who  wish 
to  enter  it  from  a  patriotic  motive  be  enabled  to  do  so  with  enthusiasm 
and  not  be  forced  to  view  it  as  a  duty,  at  best  distasteful,  at  times 
dangerous  and  to  be  shunned. 

This  is  far  from  the  first  time  that  misguided  or  uninformed 
public  opinion  has  stood  in  the  way  of  progress  and  security.  From 
the  minutes  of  a  Select  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  Great 
Britain  in  1879  appears  the  following  quotation  from  a  speech  by  a 
member  of  the  London  School  Board: 

Geography,  sir,  is  ruinous  in  its  effects  on  the  lower  classes.  Reading, 
writing,  and  arithmetic  are  comparatively  safe,  but  geography  invariably 
leads  to  revolution. 

The  whole  effect,  sir,  of  extra  subjects  is  to  diminish  the  fierce  virtues 
of  an  ancient  people.^ 

We  can  hope  that  time,  education,  and  better  understanding  can 
bring  about  gradually  more  intelligent  consideration  of  the  basic  public 
problems  which  I  have  described  tonight.  There  is  some  evidence  that 
we  can  make  progress.  Compare  the  present  state  of  public  opinion 
on  scientific  matters  in  general  with  the  following  statement  which 
comes  from  the  records  of  an  Ohio  school  board  in  the  year  1828: 

You  are  welcome  to  use  the  schoolroom  to  debate  all  proper  questions 
in,  but  such  things  as  railroads  and  telegraphs  are  impossibilities  and  rank 
infidelity.  There  is  nothing  in  the  word  of  God  about  them.  If  God  had 
designed  that  His  intelligent  creatures  should  travel  at  the  frightful  speed 
of  15  miles  an  hour  by  steam,  he  would  have  foretold  it  through  His  Holy 
prophets.   It  is  a  device  of  Satan  to  lead  immortal  souls  down  to  hell.^ 

'Quoted  by  Isaiah  Bowman  in  Technology  Review,  XXXWW  (October,  1935),  p.  19. 
'  Ibtd. 


SCIENCE    AND   SECURITY  I5I 

Unless  we  have  a  catastrophe  we  can  hope  that  ultimately  these 
difficult  questions  of  public  policy,  which  concern  science  and  many 
other  things,  will  receive  a  better  understanding  and  handling  than 
they  have  at  present.  But  in  some  of  the  situations  which  I  have 
mentioned  the  time  may  be  short  and  it  is  important  that  this  under- 
standing be  exercised  very  promptly. 

I  can  find  no  better  way  of  epitomizing  the  various  thoughts 
which  I  have  expressed  in  this  address  than  by  quoting  Pasteur,  who 
said:  "In  our  century  science  is  the  soul  of  the  prosperity  of  nations 
and  the  Uving  source  of  all  progress.  Undoubtedly  the  tiring  discus- 
sions of  poHtics  seem  to  be  our  guide — empty  appearances.  What  really 
leads  us  forward  is  a  few  scientific  discoveries  and  their  applications." 

Science  and  security  have  been  the  subject  of  this  address.  In  it  I 
have  emphasized  the  importance  of  science  and  its  proper  handling 
because  they  are  important  and  are  matters  with  which  I  and  many 
of  you  are  especially  concerned.  Science  and  security  are  not  the  only 
agencies  and  objectives  which  are  of  vital  importance — far  from  it. 
Others  on  this  two-day  program  who  are  qualified  to  do  so  have  spoken 
far  more  effectively  and  with  equal  justification  on  such  subjects  as 
security  and  ethics,  or  security  and  religion,  or  the  need  for  moral 
rearmament.  These  are  all  essential  aspects  of  successful  living  in  this 
complicated  world  which  is  populated  by  a  complicated  array  of 
nations  and  races,  each  composed  of  complicated  individuals  like  you 
and  me.  What  this  complicated  situation  requires  is  for  each  one  of 
us  to  do  his  best  with  all  the  intelligence  and  all  the  high-minded 
motivation  which  he  can  put  into  the  job.  It  is  the  primary  function  of 
this  great  educational  institution  to  train  young  men  and  women  to 
perform  eflfectively  in  this  spirit.  The  Ohio  State  University  has  made 
a  great  contribution  to  the  life  of  our  country  in  the  past  seventy-five 
years,  and  unquestionably  it  will  carry  on  into  the  future  this  splendid 
record  of  public  service. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS 
By  Howard  L.  Be  vis 

I  WISH  to  take  this  opportunity  to  thank  Vice-President  Hatcher, 
Jim  FulHngton,  and  the  really  considerable  host  of  people  whom 
they  mustered  into  service  to  bring  this  celebration  into  successful 
being.  The  patient  and  earnest  work  that  has  been  done  by  all  who 
have  contributed  to  the  success  of  our  birthday  party  merits  a  word 
of  highest  esteem.  I  wish  to  thank  the  press  for  the  generous  support 
which  they  have  accorded  us  from  the  beginning  of  our  preparation 
to  the  present  time.  I  wish  also  to  thank  the  radio  stations  for  the 
generous  treatment  which  they  have  given  The  Ohio  State  University. 
I  wish  to  thank  those  who  have  come  to  us  from  other  institutions  to 
share  with  us  this  celebration  of  our  seventy-fifth  anniversary.  I  wish 
especially,  of  course,  to  thank  those  who  have  appeared  on  our  pro- 
gram. Seldom  has  there  been  a  more  illustrious  gathering  of  intel- 
lectual life  at  one  time  on  any  college  campus.  And  it  has  been  a  source 
not  only  of  pride  but  almost  of  wonder  to  me  that  these  several 
speakers  who  began  at  points  so  divergent  around  the  periphery  of 
human  effort  came  to  conclusions  which  ran  in  parallel  courses  and 
toward  common  ends.  We  asked  you  to  come  here  to  give  your 
co-operation  and  help.  I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  only  in  the  fraternity 
of  educated  minds  lies  the  hope  of  world  unity  without  which  man 
must  go  back  into  the  jungle  from  which  he  came  with  such  painful 
effort.  The  hope  of  that  unity  has  been  greatly  fostered  by  your  pres- 
ence here  with  us  and  the  co-operation  which  we  have  felt  in  all  that 
you  have  done  and  said  while  here. 

With  a  prayer  on  our  lips  for  the  great  cause  which  we  all  serve, 
we  bid  you  Godspeed.  We  are  heartened  by  your  fellowship,  and  our 
gates  will  always  be  opened  to  you  when  you  return. 


152 


THE  DELEGATES  AND  REPRESENTATIVES 


THE  DELEGATES  FROM  COLLEGES 
AND  UNIVERSITIES 

In  Order  of  Their  Foundation 

1636  Harvard  University Paul  Herman  Buck,  A.B.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Litt.D.,  L.H.D. 

1701  Yale  University Lx)rrin  Cooke  Tarlton,  B.A. 

1740  University  of  Pennsylvania John  Milton  Fogg,  Jr.,  B.Sc,  Ph.D. 

1746  Princeton  University Richard  Francis  Sater,  A.B.,  LL.B. 

[754  Columbia  University Edward  Dauterich,  Jr.,  B.Sc. 

[764  Brown  University Earl  N.  Manchester,  B.A. 

1766  Rutgers  University James  L.  LaPoc,  Ph.B.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

1769  Dartmouth  College Albert  R.  Chandler,  A.B.,  Ph.D. 

[785  University  of  Georgia Earl  Stuart  McCutchen,  B.F.A. 

1787  Franklin  and  Marshall  College Richard  D.  Altick,  A.B.,  Ph.D. 

[787  University  of  Pittsburgh Herbert  E.  Longenecker,  B.Sc,  M.Sc,  Ph.D. 

[788  Georgetown  University Ernest  Cornell,  L.L.D. 

1789  George  Washington  University Milton  Lee  Dennis,  A.B.,  LL.B. 

[789  University  of  North  Carolina. .  .Jefferson  Barnes  Fordham,  A.B.,  M.A.,  J.D.,  J.S.D. 

1791  University  of  Vermont Lester  Lee  Woodward,  Ph.B.,  M.S. 

■793  Williams  College Walter  Jeffrey,  B.A. 

1794  Bowdoin  College Melcher  Prince  Fobes,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

[802  United   States   Military  Academy David   Warren  Gray,  B.Sc. 

[804  Ohio  University John  Calhoun  Baker,  A.B.,  M.B.A.,  LL.D. 

[815  Allegheny  College Harry  Lester  Smith,  A.B.,  A.M.,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

1 81 7  University  of  Michigan Russell  Alger  Stevenson,  B.A.,  M.A.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 

1818  Colby  College Henry  Russell  Spencer,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

1819  University  of  Cincinnati Raymond  Walters,  M.A.,  Litt.D.,  D.H.L.,  LL.D. 

1819  Centre  College  of  Kentucky Ewing  T.  Boles,  B.A. 

1819  University  of  Virginia Henry  Harrison  Simms,  B.A.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

1821  Amherst  College Samuel  Henry  Cobb,  A.B.,  B.P.E.,  M.A. 

[824  Kenyon  College Gordon  Keith  Chalmers,  A.B.,  M.A.   (Oxon.),  Ph.D., 

LL.D.,  Litt.D.,  L.H.D. 

1826  Lafayette  College Anthony  Ruppersberg,  Jr.,  B.S.,  M.D. 

1826  Western  Reserve  University Norman  Kunham  Lattin,  A.B.,  J.D.,  S.J.D. 

[827  University  of  Toronto Robert  Victor  Zumstein,  B.A.,  M.A. 

1830  Randolph-Macon  College Thomas  L.  Kibler,  A.B.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

[831  Denison  University Cyril  Fuller  Richards,  B.S.,  B.D.,  A.M.,  L.H.D. 

1831  New  York  University William  Charvat,  Ph.D. 

[831  Xavier  University Celcstin  J.  Steiner,  S.J. 

[833  Oberlin  College John  Herbert  Nichols,  A.B.,  M.D. 

[834  Tulane  University Carroll  Joseph  Peirce,  B.E.,  B.Sc,  M.Sc. 

[836  Emory  University William  Fletcher  Quillian,  Jr.,  B.A.,  B.D.,  Ph.D. 

[837  De  Pauw  University Claude  Garrison,  B.A.,  B.D.,  D.D. 

[837  University  of  Louisville Maurice  Gray  Buckles,  M.D. 

1837  Muskingum  College J.  Knox  Montgomery,  Jr.,  B.A. 

8  Duke  University David  M.  Harrison,   B.Sc,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

1839  Boston  University Francis  Gerald  Ensley,  S.T.B.,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

[839  University  of  Missouri.  . .  .Frederick  Arnold  Middlebush,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 

2  The  Citadel Judson  Hair  Sanders,  B.Sc,  M.Sc. 

1842  Ohio  Wesleyan  University C.  E.  Ficken,  B.A.,  M.A.,  LL.B.,  LL.D. 

154 


DELEGATES   FROM   COLLEGES   AND  UNIVERSITIES  155 

1845     Baldwin-Wallace  College John  Milton  Blocher,  Jr.,  Ph.D. 

1845     United  States  Naval  Academy Donald  F.  McLean,  B.Sc. 

1845  Wittenberg  College Wendell  C.  Nystrom,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

1846  Beloit  College James   Burton  Gage,  B.A. 

1846     Carroll  College Nelson  Vance  Russell,  A.B.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

1846  Mount  Union  College Melvin  W.  Hyde,  A.B.,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

1847  State  University  of  Iowa Jay  N.  Edmondson,  B.S.  in  A.S.,  Mech.  Engr. 

1847  Otterbein  College John  Gordon  Howard,  A.B.,  B.D.,  M.A.,  D.D. 

1848  University  of  Wisconsin James  Kenneth  Little,  A.B.,  M.S.,  Ph.D. 

1849  Syracuse  University J.  Carlton  Atherton 

1849  William  Jewell  College Emile  Emdon  Watson,  B.A.,  M.A.,  LL.D.,  Hon.Ph.D. 

1850  Heidelberg  College Frederick  Daniel  Lemke,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

1850     University  of  Utah A.  Ray  Olpin,  A.B.,  Ph.D. 

1850     Capital  University Harold  Leland  Yochum,  M.A.,  D.D. 

1850     University  of  Dayton George  J.  Renneker,  M.A.,  Ed.D, 

1850  Hiram  College Paul  H.  Fall,  A.B.,  M.A.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 

1 85 1  Northwestern  University Richard  Paul  Trenbeth,  B.Sc. 

1851     University  of  Minnesota James  Lewis  Morrill,  A.B.,  LL.D. 

1853     University  of  Florida Roy  Edward  Tew,  B.A.E. 

1853     Western  College  for  Women Mrs.  Grace  Stevenson  Haber,  B.A.,  M.A. 

1855     Michigan  State  College William  Hobart  Combs,  B.A.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

1855  Pennsylvania  State  College Charles  Grover  McBride,  B.S.,  M.S.,  Ph.D. 

1856  Lake  Erie  College Clarence  Shute,  Ph.D. 

1856  Monmouth  College Leslie  Mountford,  A.B.,  D.D. 

1857  Florida  State  University Ernest  W.  Cason,  M.A. 

1858  Iowa  State  College Harold  Vincent  Gaskill,  B.A.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

i860     Wheaton  College  (Illinois) Alfred  C.  Eckert,  Jr.,  B.S.,  Ph.D. 

1861     Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology Clarence  Earl  Richards,  B.Ph.,  B.Sc. 

1863  Kansas  State  College  of  Agriculture  and  Applied  Science 

Charles  Julius  WUlard,  B.Sc,  B.Sc.Agr.,  M.Sc,  Ph.D. 

1863     University  of  Massachusetts L.  S.  Woodworth,  B.Sc,  M.D. 

1865     Cornell  University Frank  Gary  Caldwell,  A.B.,  M.E.  in  E.E. 

1865     University  of  Kentucky Philip  B.  Hardymon,  B.A. 

1865  Vassar  College Lois  Boyd  Hanaford,  A.B. 

1866  Carleton   College Rebecca   S.   Marble,   B.A. 

1866     College  of  Wooster John  DeWitt  McKee,  Ph.B.,  M.A. 

1866  University  of  New  Hampshire John  I.  Falconer,  Ph.D. 

1867  University  of  Illinois William  Littell  Everitt,  E.E.,  M.Sc,  Ph.D. 

1868  Oregon  State  College Le  Velle  Wood,  B.Sc,  M.Sc. 

1868  Wayne  University Arthur  Henry  Smith,  B.Sc,  M.Sc,  Ph.D. 

1869  Pennsylvania  College  for  Women Katherine  Rhys  Reebel,  B.A.,  M.A.,  M.S.S. 

1869     Purdue  University Frank  C.  Hockema,  B.Sc.  in  Mech.  Eng.,  M.Sc.  in 

Mech.  Eng.,  Ed.D. 

1869  Wilson  College Eleanor  C.  Adams,  A.B. 

1870  University  of  Akron Hezzleton  E.  Simmons,  ScD.,  LL.D. 

1 87 1  Agricultural  and  Mechanical  College  of  Texas William  Ross  Irvin 

1872  Alabama  Polytechnic  Institute James  W.  Edwards,  B.Sc. 

1872  University  of  Toledo Wilbur  Wallace  White,  Ph.D. 

1873  Drury  College Mrs.  Norma  Pfister  Albaugh,  A.B.,  M.A. 

1873  Rose  Polytechnic  Institute. ..  .Harry  Adolph  Schwartz,  B.Sc,  M.Sc,  M.E.,  Ch.E., 

ScD.,  D.  Eng. 

1874  Colorado  College Kinzie  B.  Neff,  B.A. 

1874  University  of  Nevada George  H.  Ladd,  B.Sc.  in  Mech.  Eng. 

1875  Smith  College Mrs.  Harold  H.  Buell,  A.B. 


156 


SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 


1875  Wilmington  College Samuel  D.  Marble,  A.B.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

1880  Case  Institute  of  Technology Elmer  Hutchisson,  B.Sc,  M.Sc,  Ph.D. 

1881  Drake  University Mrs.  L.  E.  Wilcox,  A.B. 

1881  South  Dakota  State  College  of  Agriculture  and  Mechanic  Arts 

Lewis  C.  Saboe,  B.Sc. 

1881  University  of  Connecticut John  Ned  Hings,  B.S.E.E. 

1884  Bryn  Mawr  College Beatrice  Constant  Marvin,  A.B. 

1885  Goucher  College Mrs.  Faith  Chandler  Jeffries,  A.B. 

1885  University  of  Arizona David  C.  Minton,  Jr.,  B.Sc,  M.Sc. 

1886  John  Carroll  University Frederick  E.  Welfle,  S.J.,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

1886  University  of  Chattanooga James  Samuel  Owens,  B.Sc,  M.Sc,  Ph.D. 

1886  University  of  Wyoming El  wood   Emen  Davis,  B.Sc. 

1888  Utah  State  Agricultural  College Daryl  Chase,  B.A.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

1890  State  College  of  Washington Charles  Henry  Hunt,  B.Sc,  Ph.D. 

1890  University  of  Chicago F.  Champion  Ward,  A.B.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

1890  North  Texas  State  Teachers  College Herbert  C.  Parrish,  B.Sc,  M.Sc. 

1 89 1  University   of  Idaho Otto   Louis  Brunzell,  B.Sc. 

1 891  Stanford   University James  Forestal   Kurtz,   A.B.,  M.A. 

1892  Illinois  Institute  of  Technology Howard  P.  Vincent,  B.A.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

1892  University  of  Oklahoma Loyd  E.  Harris,  B.Sc.  Pharm.,  Ph.D. 

1892  Rhode  Island  State  College Thomas  James  Matthews,  B.Sc. 

1893  Montana  State  College Edwin  N.  Lassettre,  B.Sc,  Ph.D. 

1897  Hood  College Kathryn  Manges  Sexton,  B.Sc. 

1901  Sweet  Briar  College Mrs.  Elizabeth  K.  McGavran,  B.A.,  B.Sc. 

1908  University  of  Omaha Donald  Coston  Wear,  B.A.,  M.A. 

1908  Youngstown  College Joseph  E.  Smith,  Ph.D. 

1909  University  of  Redlands Harry  G.  Ford,  A.B.,  B.D. 

1910  Bowling  Green  State  University Frank  J.  Prout,  B.Litt.,  Ped.D. 

1910  California  Institute  of  Technology Edwin  N.  Lassettre,  M.Sc,  Ph.D. 

191 1  College  of  St.  Mary  of  the  Springs J.  M.  Bauer,  O.P.,  B.C.E.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

1923  Fenn  College Edward  Hodnett,  Ph.D. 


THE  DELEGATES  FROM  SOCIETIES 

AND  ASSOCIATIONS 

FOR  THE  ADVANCEMENT  OF  LEARNING 

In  Alphabetical  Order 

American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science 

Frank  Leslie  Campbell,  B.Sc.  in  Ch.E.,  M.Sc,  D.Sc. 
American  Association  of  Collegiate  Registrars.  ..Ronald  B.  Thompson,  B.A.,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 
American  Association  of  Collegiate  Schools  of  Business 

Russell  Alger  Stevenson,  B.A.,  M.A.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 
American  Association  for  Health,  Physical  Education,  and  Recreadon 

Paul  E.  Landis,  B.Sc,  M.A. 
American  Association  of  Land-Grant  Colleges  and  Universities 

James  Lewis  Morrill,  A.B.,  LL.D. 

American  Chemical  Society William  McPherson,  B.Sc,  M.Sc,  LL.D.,  Ph.D. 

American  Council  on  Education Raymond  Walters,  M.A.,  Litt.D.,  D.H.L.,  LL.D. 

American  Economic  Association Albert  Benedict  Wolfe,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

American  Historical  Association Walter  F.  Dorn,  Ph.D. 

American  Home  Economics  Association Vivian  M.  Roberts,  B.Sc,  M.Sc,  Ph.D. 

American  Institute  of  Mining  and  Metallurgical  Engineers.  . .  .Clyde  Williams,  B.Sc,  D.Sc. 

American  Library  Association Walter  T.  Brahm,  A.B.,  B.S.  in  L.S. 

American  Mathematical  Society Charles  Napoleon  Moore,  A.B.,  M.Sc,  Ph.D.,  ScD. 

American  Optometric  Association John  B.  O'Shca,  O.D. 

American  Philological  Association Kenneth  Morgan  Abbott,  Ph.D. 

American  Philosophical  Association Albert  E.  Avey,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

American  Physical  Society Harold  Herborg  Nielsen,  B.Sc,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

American  Political  Science  Association Henry  Russell  Spencer,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers Clyde  T.  Morris,  C.E. 

American  Society  for  Engineering  Education Clement  Joseph  Freund,  A.B.,  M.E. 

American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers Samuel  R.  Beitler,  B.M.E.,  M.E. 

American   Veterinary  Medical  Association Walter  R.  Krill,  B.Sc,  D.V.M. 

Association  of  American  Colleges Kenneth  Irving  Brown,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 

Battelle  Memorial  Institute Clyde  Williams,  B.Sc,  D.Sc. 

Botanical  Society  of  America,  Inc William  Campbell  Steere,  Ph.D. 

Engineers'  Council  for  Professional  Development 

Ivan  Charles  Crawford,  B.S.  (C.E.),  C.E.,  ScD. 

Geological  Society  of  America John  Lyon  Rich,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

National  Association  of  Deans  of  Women.  .  .  .Mrs.  Christine  Verges  Conaway,  B.A.,  M.A, 
National  Association  of  State  Universities 

Frederick  Arnold  Middlebush,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 
North  Central  Association  of  Colleges  and  Secondary  Schools 

Bland  Lloyd  Stradley,  B.A.,  D.Ed. 

Ohio  College  Association Hezzeleton  Simmons,  ScD.,  LL.D. 

Ohio  State  Archaeological  and  Historical  Society Erwin  C.  Zepp,  B.L.A. 

Smithsonian   Institution Matthew  Williams  Stirling,   B.A.,  D.Sc. 


157 


REPRESENTATIVES  OF  STUDENT  ORGANIZATIONS 

In  Alphabetical  Order 

Alpha  Lambda  Delta Janet  Eileen  Monahan 

Bucket  and  Dipper Willis  Kellen  Link 

Chimes Betty   Jane   Southard 

Civitas William    Franklin    Donnelly 

Cosmopolitan   Club Alexander   Grobman 

Council  of  Fraternity  Presidents Charles  D.  Byrd 

Military  Council Thomas  William  Feick 

Mortar  Board Martha  Ann  Beha 

Ohio  State  Lantern Lee  R.  Adams 

Ohio  State  University  Y.M.C.A Russell  W.  Miller 

Ohio  State  Y.W.C.A Mildred  Ellen  Clodfelter 

Pharmacy  College  Council Nancy  Ann  RufF 

Pleiades Margery    Jean    Beazley 

Phi  Eta  Sigma Myron  Teitelbaum 

Sphinx David    H.    King 

Student  Council  of  the  College  of  Arts  and  Sciences Lawrence  Rapport  Robinson 

Student  Council  for  Religious  Affairs Williams  O.  Hoover,  Jr. 

Student  Senate Leslie  Rudisill  Forney,  Jr. 

The  Engineers  Council Charles  Wilson,  Jr. 

University  House  Assembly Bessie  Mae  Ring 

Women's  Self  Government  Association S.  Elaine  Thomas 


158 


Major  General  A.  C.  McAuliffe 
U.  S.  Armv  General  Staff 


Edgar  C.  Bain,  Vice  President 

Research  and  Technology 

Carnegie-Illinois  Steel  Corporation 


Hugh  S.  Taylor 

iJcan  of  the  Graduate  School, 

Princeton  University 


Alpheus  W.  Smith,  President 

The  Ohio  State  University 

Research  Foundation 


PART  II 

THE  PROGRAM  SPONSORED  BY 

THE  OHIO  STATE  UNIVERSITY 

RESEARCH  FOUNDATION 


November  4,  1948 
Hagerty  Hall  Auditorium 


Theme:    RESEARCH-A  HUMAN  RESOURCE 


Chairman: 

Howard  L.  Bevis,  President,  The  Ohio  State  University 

Speakers: 

Major  General  A.  C.  McAuliffe,  Deputy  Director  for  Research 
and  Development,  Army  General  Staff 

Edgar  C.  Bain,  Vice-President,  Research  and  Technology,  Carnegie- 
Illinois  Steel  Corporation 

Hugh  S.  Taylor,  Dean,  Graduate  School,  Princeton  University 


OPENING  REMARKS 
By  Howard  L.  Bevis 

THE  Ohio  State  University  is  celebrating  its  seventy-fifth  anni- 
versary this  year.  This  evening's  meeting  constitutes  the  sec- 
ond major  event  on  our  calendar  of  activities  commemorating 
this  anniversary.  It  has  been  arranged  by  The  Ohio  State  University 
Research  Foundation  as  a  part  of  its  twelfth  annual  meeting. 

The  function  of  the  Research  Foundation  is  to  organize,  in  co- 
operation with  industry  and  government,  and  to  administer  under 
contract,  research  projects  which  not  only  are  of  sufficient  potential 
value  to  the  sponsoring  organization  to  merit  its  support,  but  are  also 
of  definite  interest  to  the  University  and  to  the  members  of  its  staff. 
These  projects  are  carried  out  in  university  laboratories  under  the 
supervision  of  qualified  and  interested  members  of  the  faculty.  They 
are  integrated  with  the  regular  university  program  of  instruction  and 
research  in  such  a  way  that,  in  addition  to  the  full-time  scientific 
personnel  who  are  utilized  in  these  sponsored  researches,  a  large  num- 
ber of  graduate  students  receive  valuable  supplemental  training  and 
practical  research  experience  by  participating  in  them. 

Although  the  Research  Foundation  was  established  only  twelve 
years  ago,  it  now  numbers  in  its  co-operative  research  program  approx- 
imately one  hundred  currently  active  projects  being  carried  out  in 
twenty-five  departments  of  the  University  under  the  sponsorship  of 
industrial  firms  and  associations,  and  several  of  the  major  divisions  of 
the  federal  government.  Through  these  Research  Foundation  projects 
a  closer  relationship  is  promoted  between  the  University  and  industry, 
and  between  the  University  and  various  branches  of  our  national  gov- 
ernment. By  this  means  the  University  is  enabled  to  participate  more 
fully  in  scientific  and  technical  progress  and  in  the  bettering  of  our 
public  welfare. 

The  value  of  this  program  to  the  co-operating  organizations  in 
terms  of  scientific  and  technical  results  is  perhaps  best  shown  by  the 
tremendous  growth  of  the  Foundation's  activities  during  the  twelve 
years  of  its  existence.   From  this  program  there  has  resulted  a  steady 

162 


OPENING  REMARKS  1 63 

flow  of  graduates  who  have  had  practical  research  experience  while  still 
attending  the  University,  and  who  are  thus  fitted  to  step  more  imme- 
diately into  responsible  scientific  and  technical  positions  upon  their 
graduation.  Furthermore,  the  scientific  and  technical  results  of  the  re- 
search programs  themselves  have,  through  publications  and  through 
application  in  the  laboratories  of  the  sponsoring  organizations,  demon- 
strated beyond  question  the  value  and  the  significance  of  our  theme  for 
this  evening,  "Research — a  Human  Resource." 

The  program  of  the  Research  Foundation  involves  co-operation 
of  government,  industry,  and  the  University.  This  pattern  is  typical 
of  the  over-all  scientific  program  of  the  nation,  in  which  the  dominant 
roles  are  similarly  played  by  government,  by  industry,  and  by  univer- 
sities and  other  non-profit  research  institutions.  It  is  fitting,  therefore, 
that  in  this  program  the  points  of  view  of  these  three  major  types  of 
organizations  toward  research  and  its  place  in  the  development  of  our 
human  relations  should  be  represented. 

We  are  particularly  fortunate  to  have  with  us  this  evening  as 
spokesman  for  the  government  Major  General  A.  C.  McAuliflFe,  who 
has  had  a  distinguished  career,  not  only  in  active  military  service,  but 
also  in  the  research  and  development  programs  of  the  Armed  Forces. 
He  first  attended  West  Virginia  University  and  subsequently  became 
a  graduate  of  the  United  States  Military  Academy,  the  Field  Artillery 
School,  the  Command  and  General  Staff  School,  and  the  Army  War 
College.  Early  in  the  recent  war  he  joined  the  loist  Airborne  Division. 
During  the  Normandy  invasion  he  parachuted  into  France,  and  in  the 
airborne  invasion  of  Holland  he  commanded  the  Glider  Echelon.  In 
January,  1946,  he  became  Ground  Forces  Adviser  to  Admiral  Blandy, 
Commander  of  Joint  Army-Navy  Task  Force  One  for  Operation 
Crossroads,  and  served  at  Bikini  throughout  the  atomic-bomb  tests. 
In  August,  1946,  he  returned  to  the  United  States  to  become  Army 
Secretary  of  the  Joint  Research  and  Development  Board,  a  position 
which  he  held  until  January  of  this  year  when  he  was  appointed  Chief 
of  the  Research  and  Development  Group  of  the  General  Staff,  United 
States  Army.  He  also  serves  as  a  member  of  the  Research  and  Devel- 
opment Board,  which  has  the  over-all  responsibility  of  co-ordinating 
the  research  and  development  program  of  the  National  Military  Estab- 


164  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

lishment.  General  McAuliffe  will  speak  to  us  on  "Military  Research 
in  the  University." 

We  are  especially  pleased  to  have  Edgar  C.  Bain  as  our  speaker  on 
behalf  of  industry.  He  not  only  occupies  an  important  position  in 
industrial  research  but  also  is  an  alumnus  of  this  University  and  an 
Advisory  Member  of  the  Research  Foundation.  A  native  of  Ohio,  he 
received  his  Bachelor's  and  Master's  degrees,  as  well  as  his  professional 
degree,  in  chemical  engineering  from  this  University.  During  the  first 
World  War  he  was  commissioned  in  the  Chemical  Warfare  Service, 
after  which  he  began  his  distinguished  work  in  the  field  of  metallurgy. 
This  has  included  pioneering  in  the  use  of  X-rays  for  the  study  of 
crystal  structure  and  intensive  study  of  alloy  steels.  In  1943  he  was 
appointed  to  his  present  position  as  Vice-President  in  charge  of  Re- 
search and  Technology  of  the  Carnegie-Illinois  Steel  Corporation.  For 
his  outstanding  contributions  to  the  development  of  metallurgy,  he 
has  been  awarded  many  honors,  including  the  Benjamin  Lamme  Gold 
Medal  and  the  Albert  Sauveur  Achievement  Award.  In  addition,  he 
is  active  in  the  affairs  of  many  scientific  and  engineering  societies, 
being  a  past  president  of  the  American  Society  for  Metals  and  at  the 
present  time  chairman  of  the  General  Research  Committee  of  the 
American  Iron  and  Steel  Institute.  He  has  been  awarded  the  honorary 
degrees  of  Doctor  of  Engineering  by  Lehigh  University  and  Doctor  of 
Science  by  The  Ohio  State  University.  Mr.  Bain  will  address  us  on 
the  subject,  "The  Functions  of  Industrial  Research." 

The  final  speaker  on  our  program  is  Hugh  S.  Taylor,  who  is 
eminently  fitted  to  present  the  university  point  of  view.  A  native  of 
England,  he  was  educated  principally  at  Liverpool  University  where, 
following  advanced  work  also  at  the  Nobel  Institute  of  Stockholm  and 
the  Technische  Hochschule  at  Hanover,  he  received  the  degree  of 
Doctor  of  Science  in  1914.  In  that  same  year  he  came  to  the  United 
States  and  became  instructor  in  chemistry  at  Princeton  University, 
where  he  has  advanced  to  his  present  position  of  Chairman  of  the 
Department  of  Chemistry  and  David  B.  Jones  Professor  of  Chemistry. 
He  was  active  in  both  World  Wars,  as  a  member  of  the  British  Muni- 
tions Inventions  Department  in  the  first  war,  and  in  the  recent  war 
successively  as  liaison  officer  between  Canadian  and  American  science, 


OPENING   REMARKS  165 

as  director  of  a  research  project  on  heavy-water  production,  and  finally 
as  associate  director  of  the  SAM  Laboratories  at  Columbia  University. 
Thus  he  played  an  essential  part  in  promoting  the  development  of 
the  atomic  bomb,  which  General  McAuHffe  and  his  group  later  tested 
at  Bikini,  and  he  also  has  had  extensive  participation  with  research  in 
industry.  He  has  been  a  distinguished  contributor  to  the  fields  of 
catalysis,  photochemistry,  and  the  mechanisms  of  chemical  reactions. 
In  recognition  of  his  outstanding  work  he  has  received  many  medals, 
including  the  Nichols  Medal  of  the  American  Chemical  Society  and 
the  Longstaff  Medal  of  the  Chemical  Society  of  London.  He  has  also 
been  awarded  the  honorary  degree  of  Doctor  of  Science  by  the  Uni- 
versity of  Louvain,  Rutgers  University,  Boston  College,  Laval  Univer- 
sity, and  Case  Institute  of  Technology,  and  the  LL.D.  degree  by  Prov- 
idence College.  It  is  a  baffling  thing  to  understand  how  this  man  has 
still  found  the  time  to  serve  as  Dean  of  the  Graduate  School  at  Prince- 
ton University,  a  position  to  which  he  was  appointed  in  1945.  Mr. 
Taylor  will  speak  to  us  on  "The  Role  of  University  Research." 


MILITARY  RESEARCH  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY 
By  Major  General  A.  C.  McAuliffe 

I  WANT  to  thank  you  for  the  honor  which  you  have  extended  to  me 
of  participating  in  your  Diamond  Jubilee  Anniversary  celebration 
of  the  founding  of  this  great  University.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  have 
the  opportunity  of  becoming  better  acquainted  with  your  institution, 
your  Foundation,  faculty  and  officials,  and  of  discussing  with  you 
tonight  some  of  the  aspects  of  "Military  Research  in  the  University." 

It  is  interesting  to  trace  the  history  of  Ohio,  the  first  state  to  be 
carved  out  of  the  original  Northwest  Territory,  and  note  how  you  have 
continued  to  lead,  down  through  the  years,  in  carrying  out  one  of  the 
most  important  provisions  of  the  Northwest  Ordinance,  namely,  that 
"knowledge  being  necessary  to  good  government  and  the  happiness 
of  mankind,  schools  and  the  means  of  education  shall  [within  its 
boundaries]  forever  be  encouraged."  Unhappily,  we  are  today  having 
to  place  more  emphasis  on  the  good  government  part  of  this  provision 
in  the  form  of  mihtary  preparedness,  whereas  we  might  better  be 
placing  our  emphasis  on  the  "happiness  of  mankind."  The  interna- 
tional power  game  into  which  we  have  been  forced  makes  it  manda- 
tory for  our  very  survival  as  a  free  and  independent  state  that  we  lead 
in  world  scientific  and  technological  developments. 

The  seventy-five  years  since  the  founding  of  The  Ohio  State  Uni- 
versity as  a  land-grant  state  university  have  been  marked  by  your 
phenomenal  growth  to  become  the  fourth  largest  educational  institu- 
tion in  the  nation  with  a  student  body  of  approximately  25,000,  and 
by  your  outstanding  contributions  and  invaluable  service  to  the  people 
of  the  state  of  Ohio  and  the  nation.  We,  in  the  Armed  Forces,  are 
especially  indebted  to  you  for  your  splendid  co-operation  and  assistance 
during  the  past  war,  and  for  your  continuing  interest  and  support  of 
our  postwar  research  and  development  program.  You  have  provided 
us  with  that  valuable  asset  which  no  money  can  buy :  human  resources 
— scientific  brain  power  and  the  engineering  skills  to  exploit  it.  Re- 
gardless of  how  rich  a  country  may  be  in  natural  resources,  it  is  this 
human  element  that  is  responsible  for  technological  progress. 

166 


MIUTARY   RESEARCH  1 67 

Next  to  this  important  contribution  of  scientific  brain  power  and 
engineering  skills,  we  also  look  to  you  for  basic  and  fundamental 
knowledge  concerning  the  laws  of  nature.  This  knowledge,  properly 
interpreted  and  applied,  can  enable  us  to  equip  our  Armed  Forces 
with  unquestionably  superior  weapons  and  techniques  and  assure  us 
the  strong  national  position  in  industrial  technology  which,  in  the  last 
analysis,  is  the  backbone  of  our  national  security. 

I  want  to  commend  particularly  the  foresight  and  vision  of  your 
university  officials  and  faculty  in  setting  up  The  Ohio  State  University 
Research  Foundation  twelve  years  ago,  thereby  enabling  this  institution 
through  a  fortunate  combination  of  time  and  circumstances  to  make 
one  of  the  largest  and  most  valuable  university  contributions  to  urgent 
and  vital  wartime  research  and  development.  The  groundwork  laid 
by  your  Foundation  in  the  less  hurried  days  of  1937  for  the  purpose 
of  integrating,  organizing,  and  administering  sponsored  research  at 
Ohio  State,  enabled  you  to  handle  the  enormous  military  research  and 
development  program  suddenly  required  of  you  during  the  war  much 
more  smoothly  and  adequately  than  would  have  otherwise  been 
possible. 

This  greatly  increased  use  of  university  research  capabilities  by 
the  government  and  by  industry  will,  from  all  indications,  continue. 
The  idea  of  government-sponsored  research  in  the  universities  is  not 
new.  It  dates  back  to  the  passage  of  the  Hatch  Act  in  1887  by  Congress, 
providing  for  federal  grants-in-aid  for  agricultural  experiment  stations 
in  the  land-grant  college  system.  This  rather  haphazard  government- 
sponsored  research  produced  some  helpful  results  in  World  War  I, 
and  brought  to  the  fore  the  importance  of  colleges  as  research  centers, 
as  well  as  their  lack  of  organization  in  some  cases  for  managing  such 
research.  While  government-sponsored  research  prior  to  World  War  II 
was  measured  in  thousands  of  dollars,  it  is  today  measured  in  millions, 
and  university  foundations  such  as  yours,  or  similar  special  divisions 
in  the  universities,  are  necessary  to  handle  adequately  the  costly  pro- 
grams and  insure  full  co-operation  and  participation  on  the  part  of 
government,  industry,  and  the  educational  institutions  of  the  country. 

As  the  spokesman  for  the  government  this  evening,  I  should  like 
to  call  your  attention  briefly  to  the  present  magnitude,  scope,  and 


i68 


SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 


goals  of  government  research  generally.  This  situation  was  thoroughly 
covered  last  year  by  John  R.  Steelman,  chairman  of  the  President's 
Scientific  Research  Board,  in  his  five-volume  report  to  the  President, 
w^ith  which  I  am  sure  you  are  all  familiar.  There  is  hardly  a  field  in 
either  the  physical  or  the  social  sciences  in  which  governmental  re- 
search is  not  now  carried  on.  With  few  exceptions,  this  research  is 
along  applied  or  developmental  lines,  although  basic  research  is  con- 
ducted in  agriculture,  aeronautics,  synthetic-fuel  studies,  and  atomic 
energy,  to  name  a  few  instances  where  it  is  essential. 

The  goals  that  justify  the  expenditure  of  a  fairly  large  portion  of 
the  taxpayer's  dollar  for  research  and  the  consequent  diversion  of 
many  scientists,  engineers,  and  facilities  from  private  pursuits  can  best 
be  summed  up  in  the  clear  and  simple  statement  in  the  Preamble  of 
the  Constitution  which  directs  the  government  of  the  United  States 
to  "provide  for  the  common  defence,  promote  the  general  welfare, 
and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity." 
Specific  goals  are  worked  out  by  agencies  in  the  government  and  by 
officials  who  are  appointed  to  their  positions  or  who  are  elected  to 
office  by  the  people  of  the  country.  During  peacetime,  the  research 
facilities  in  government  agencies  demonstrated  their  usefulness  as  a 
service  to  the  well-being  of  the  country,  and  during  the  war  years 
they  proved  their  worth  and  vital  importance  in  solving  some  defense 
research  problems.  In  most  instances,  this  demanded  the  dropping  of 
basic  investigations  in  favor  of  applied  research  and  development,  the 
same  situation  that  prevailed  in  the  majority  of  the  country's  indus- 
trial and  nonprofit  laboratories.  The  effects  of  federal  research  and 
development  programs  are  felt  in  every  area  of  our  national  life.  The 
National  Bureau  of  Standards,  the  Civil  Aeronautics  Authority,  the 
Army  Quartermaster  Corps  and  Medical  Department,  the  Depart- 
ments of  Agriculture  and  Interior,  the  Bureau  of  Mines,  and  others 
all  set  standards  and  specifications  which  are  followed  by  private 
organizations  throughout  the  country. 

Because  of  the  necessarily  large  expenditures  at  the  present  time 
for  military  research  and  development,  there  has  been  considerable 
severe  criticism  of  the  so-called  "militarization  of  science."  A  solution 
to  this  problem  has  been  offered  by  Mr.  Steelman.  One  of  his  recom- 


MILITARY   RESEARCH  169 

mendations  for  co-ordinating  all  government  research  has  been  acted 
upon  by  the  President  in  setting  up  the  Interdepartmental  Committee 
for  Research  and  Development,  on  which  Committee  I  sit  as  Depart- 
ment of  the  Army  representative.  It  is  hoped  that  Mr.  Steelman's 
other  recommendation  to  serve  this  same  purpose  for  all  our  national 
research  and  development  in  government,  in  industry,  and  in  the 
universities  and  nonprofit  foundations  in  some  form  of  a  National 
Science  Foundation  will  be  acted  upon  by  the  next  Congress.  As 
conceived  by  Vannevar  Bush,  at  the  request  of  the  late  President 
Roosevelt,  this  National  Science  Foundation  would  serve  as  an  over-all 
co-ordinating  and  evaluating  agency  for  national  research  and  develop- 
ment, and  provide  much  needed  encouragement  for  the  development 
of  future  scientific  talent  at  the  higher  levels  of  education. 

All  the  elements  of  the  nation's  effort  toward  national  security 
and  prosperity  require  policy  direction.  In  the  Armed  Services  we  now 
have  the  Research  and  Development  Board  to  serve  this  purpose  as 
far  as  research  and  development  in  the  National  Military  EstabUsh- 
ment  are  concerned.  Undoubtedly,  one  of  the  most  important  accom- 
plishments resulting  from  the  establishment  of  the  RDB  is  the 
arrangement  by  which  outstanding  civilian  scientists  and  technical 
men  sit  with  the  miUtary  and  actually  vote  on  major  policy  decisions 
affecting  military  research  and  development  activities.  When  the  three 
military  branches  do  not  agree,  the  civilian  membership,  in  many 
cases,  is  sufficient  to  swing  the  committee  or  panel  vote  one  way  or 
the  other.  The  majority  of  these  civiUan  members  are  obtained  on 
loan  from  educational  institutions.  Among  them  I  have  in  mind 
Mr.  Owens,  member  of  the  Infrared  Panel  of  the  Committee  on 
Electronics,  and  Mr.  Crawford,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ord- 
nance, both  of  whom  are  members  of  your  Foundation.  In  addition, 
when  Mr.  Bush,  Chairman  of  the  Research  and  Development  Board, 
was  recently  forced  to  relinquish  his  task,  the  military  looked  to  the 
universities  and  obtained  Karl  Compton,  President  of  Massachusetts 
Institute  of  Technology,  to  replace  him  as  chairman.  Others  not 
holding  permanent  membership  on  the  Board  are  helpful  in  lending 
their  assistance  from  time  to  time. 

Unfortunately,  there  is  no  similar  agency  for  the  co-ordination  of 


170  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

all  the  research  and  development  in  the  country,  or  even  all  of  the 
governmental  research  and  development,  as  the  Interdepartmental 
Committee  acts  only  in  an  advisory  capacity.  Our  national  research 
and  development  effort  consequently  lacks  what  might  be  termed 
"program  research."  This  term  covers  background  and  exploratory 
research  in  broad  fields  to  determine  what  areas  of  further  research 
will  be  most  profitable  in  the  interest  of  promoting  our  national  wel- 
fare and  security.  By  its  very  nature,  such  research  can  only  be 
instigated  at  the  highest  government  level. 

The  cost  of  modern  research  and  development  is  fabulously  high 
and  is  increasing  as  technology  becomes  more  complicated.  Where 
most  of  the  cost  of  research  in  the  past  has  been  borne  by  industry 
and  private  philanthropists,  the  burden  of  financial  responsibility  now 
rests  upon  the  government  and  the  taxpayers.  It  will  always  be  a 
problem  to  persuade  the  taxpayer  that  the  cost  is  a  necessary  expend- 
iture. There  is  a  question  right  now  as  to  whether  this  or  any  other 
country's  economy  can  support  the  cost  of  the  sustained  conflict  which 
might  utilize,  for  example,  some  of  the  extremely  expensive  weapons 
of  the  often  predicted  "push-button"  warfare  of  the  future  even  if  we 
can  develop  them.  Because  of  the  necessity  of  holding  costs  down, 
and  fully  evaluating  the  end  results  of  our  efforts,  it  is  essential  that 
our  research  and  development  programs  in  this  country  be  subjected 
to  alert  review  in  order  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  producing  end 
items  unrealistic  with  respect  to  the  capabilities  of  the  nation's  economy. 

Besides  co-ordinating  research  and  development,  another  impor- 
tant purpose  that  this  proposed  National  Science  Foundation  could 
serve  would  be  as  a  powerful  aid  in  providing  the  necessary  personnel 
for  an  adequate  national  research  and  development  program.  Science 
has  advanced  to  the  point  where  all  the  areas  from  idea  conception, 
efficient  administration,  on  through  to  equipment  operations,  require 
many  and  different  types  of  trained  technical  personnel.  If  any  type 
of  personnel  is  slighted,  the  chain  of  practical  adaptability  of  science 
is  liable  to  fail.  Expansion  of  trained  personnel  has  not  kept  pace  with 
research  and  development  budgets.  Many  of  the  students  in  training 
at  the  beginning  of  World  War  II  were  withdrawn  to  support  the  war 
in  other  directions,  as  a  result  of  what  I  consider  to  be  a  short-sighted 


MILITARY   RESEARCH  I7I 

policy  in  the  matter  of  Selective  Service.  The  scientists,  technicians, 
and  engineers  employed  in  government,  industrial,  and  educational 
laboratories  now  comprise  less  than  one-half  of  one  per  cent  of  our 
population.  A  great  majority  of  these  are  technicians  and  engineers. 
Those  actually  engaged  in  scientific  research  are  less  than  one-sixth  of 
even  this  small  percentage.  That  the  nation  u'ill  require  in  a  future 
emergency  more  scientists  and  technicians  than  are  available  today  is 
a  foregone  conclusion. 

One  of  the  military's  most  pressing  problems  in  connection  with 
the  civilian  world  is  in  obtaining  a  sufficient  number  of  qualified 
scientific  personnel  to  man  our  government  staffs  and  laboratories. 
This  is  a  particularly  trying  problem  to  us  in  the  military  who  are 
trying  to  recruit  highly  qualified  scientific  personnel  in  competition 
with  the  other  military  departments  and  with  industry  and  the  uni- 
versity. We  are  not  able  to  pay  the  salaries  of  industry  nor  are  we 
able  to  provide  the  atmosphere  or  the  environment  that  scientists  find 
on  the  campus.  I  hope  you  will  think  that  we  have  made  some  gains 
in  this  field.  We  have  certainly  tried  hard  both  in  the  direction  of 
salary  and  in  improved  environment  for  scientists  working  for  the 
government. 

Some  of  the  steps  we  have  taken  in  finding  an  answer  to  this 
problem  have  been  to  contact  the  leading  scientific  and  engineering 
societies  and  arrange  with  them  to  form  standing  committees  to  act 
as  Haison  agencies  with  the  Army  in  matters  of  mutual  interest.  This 
is  likewise  done  by  the  Navy  and  Air  Force,  of  course.  In  the  Army 
we  have  a  program  of  graduate  study  for  Regular  officers  who  possess 
special  qualifications  in  science  and  engineering.  The  program  covers 
about  one  thousand  officers  in  95  schools  throughout  the  country. 
After  graduation  they  will  serve  as  administrators  of  Army  research 
laboratories,  proving  grounds,  or  headquarters  offices.  Actually,  there 
are  several  of  these  officers  who  are  taking  courses  here  at  Ohio  State. 
We  have  a  Reserve  officer  program  in  which  we  form  research  and 
development  groups  of  civilian  scientists  holding  Reserve  commissions. 
They  work  on  Army  research  and  development  problems  during 
peacetime  and  will  have  mobiUzation  assignments  that  will  make 
them  available  for  technical  work  in  case  of  emergency. 


iy2  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

FINALLY,  much  of  our  research  and  development  work  is  done  under 
contract  with  outside  faciUties.  The  National  Military  Establish- 
ment is  the  largest  contracting  agency  in  the  country.  I  shall  conclude 
with  some  of  the  problems  involved  in  carrying  out  its  program  as 
far  as  the  universities  are  concerned  as  well  as  some  of  the  advantages 
I  believe  there  are  to  be  gained. 

Of  equal  importance  to  an  increased  number  of  scientists  and 
technicians  is  an  increased  amount  of  basic  and  fundamental  knowl- 
edge on  which  to  build  new  developments.  According  to  the  Steelman 
Report,  approximately  $35,000,000  is  being  spent  by  the  government 
on  fundamental  research  in  the  educational  and  nonprofit  research 
institutions  of  the  country,  and  Mr.  Steelman  suggests  that  this  amount 
should  be  quadrupled  in  the  next  decade. 

In  letting  research  contracts  to  universities,  we  of  the  military  try 
constantly  to  bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  university  is  first  and 
foremost  a  seat  of  learning.  Research  contracts  cannot  be  allowed  to 
divert  the  scientists  on  your  faculty  and  limit  their  teaching,  thereby 
lowering  the  quality  of  instruction.  The  efficient  functioning  of  such 
groups  as  your  Research  Foundation  can  successfully  avoid  this  error 
by  adapting  government  research  programs  to  academic  and  educa- 
tional objectives  of  the  university,  with  consequent  benefit  to  both 
the  government  and  the  university. 

Criticism  of  the  government  in  general,  and  of  the  military  in 
particular,  both  as  employers  of  scientists  and  as  sponsors  of  scientific 
research  contracts,  has  been  largely  directed  at  statutes,  regulations, 
and  policies  governing  their  activities  in  these  roles.  In  an  effort  to 
improve  our  Army  research  and  development  contract  procedures, 
last  spring  we  asked  Robert  Stewart,  Vice-President  of  Purdue  Univer- 
sity, to  head  an  Advisory  Committee  on  Contractual  and  Administra- 
tive Procedures  and,  after  studying  present  procedures,  to  recommend 
improvements.  A  report  has  not  been  officially  submitted  to  Secretary 
Royall  or  me  as  yet,  but  I  have  seen  preliminary  drafts.  The  Com- 
mittee was  composed  of  executives  and  contract  administrators  from 
a  number  of  our  universities  and  industrial  organizations  and  private 
research  institutes.  I  should  like  to  tell  you  now  some  of  the  proposals 
that  the  group  has  made. 


MIUTARY  RESEARCH  173 

The  Committee  suggested  that  in  selecting  competent  contractors 
for  research  and  development  in  the  Army,  contracting  officers  should 
consider:  (i)  the  desirability  of  spreading  research  and  development 
as  widely  as  possible  and  encouraging  small  and  new  organizations 
which  have  good  qualifications  in  particular  fields;  (2)  the  personnel 
available,  including  their  experience  and  their  research  and  develop- 
ment qualifications;  and  (3)  the  qualifications  of  the  organization 
(including  management,  financial  responsibility,  and  equipment  and 
space  necessary  for  the  work),  the  previous  experience  and  perform- 
ance of  the  proposed  contractor  in  the  same  or  related  fields,  and  the 
price  or  cost  estimated  to  accompHsh  the  proposed  work. 

It  was  proposed  by  the  Committee  that  each  technical  service 
within  the  military  should  handle  research  and  development  contracts 
through  one  individual  with  rank  and  authority  commensurate  with 
his  responsibility  and  that  of  the  contractor's  representative  with  whom 
he  is  to  deal.  The  contracting  officer  should  have  complete  control 
over  all  aspects  of  relations  with  the  contractor  (except  where  an 
independent  audit  is  indicated).  An  independent  audit  should  be 
limited  to  a  verification  of  the  contractor's  statements  of  cost  and 
should  not  include  approval  or  disapproval  of  items  of  cost.  Sound 
principles  of  organization  include  the  consolidation  of  authority  with 
responsibility,  clean  lines  for  the  delegation  of  authority  and  respon- 
sibility, and  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  administration  is  primarily 
a  service  and  a  co-ordination  function  to  facilitate  rather  than  to  control 
the  actual  work  at  an  operational  level.  Violation  of  this  principle, 
said  the  Committee,  inevitably  causes  confusion,  delays,  and  ineffectual 
operation. 

In  a  governmental  undertaking,  where  all  of  the  details  of  what 
is  done  are  open  to  public  censure,  it  is  only  natural  that  there  should 
be  a  tendency  in  the  direction  of  controls  which  will  prevent  criticism, 
even  if  these  controls  cost  more  than  perhaps  will  be  saved.  In  a  good 
Army  research  and  development  program  we  are  sometimes  forced  to 
"stick  our  necks  out,"  in  order  to  put  through  programs  which,  while 
based  on  sound  principles,  cannot  at  the  time  be  openly  justified 
because  of  security  restrictions,  slowness  in  achieving  results,  and  the 
like.  It  is  an  obligation  of  an  institution  contracting  with  the  govern- 


174  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

ment  to  point  out  and  to  implement,  where  possible,  those  changes  in 
methods  and  procedures  which  promise  a  decrease  in  cost  as  compared 
with  the  value  derived.  Even  in  research  and  development  contracts, 
the  value  to  the  military  establishment  of  what  is  bought  must  be 
compared  with  its  cost,  although  we  recognize,  of  course,  that  in 
certain  research  and  development  contracts  we  can't  win  all  the  time 
and  if  we  don't  take  chances  we'll  never  get  results.  However,  the 
use,  or  an  implication  of  the  use,  of  Army  research  and  development 
contracts  as  an  outright  subsidy  is  neither  justifiable  nor  desirable. 

The  Committee  said  that  in  time  of  peace,  research  and  develop- 
ment work  placed  with  educational  institutions  should  be  unclassified 
as  far  as  possible.  The  Committee  did  not  extend  this  recommendation 
to  include  research  institutes  associated  with  educational  institutions 
where  the  research  and  development  work  is  segregated  from  the 
normal  academic  instruction  and  research  activities.  It  is  particularly 
advisable  that  fundamental  knowledge  be  widely  circulated  and  that 
basic  research  contracts  be  kept  unclassified.  I  might  say  that  all 
government  agencies  are  interested  in  this  report  of  the  Stewart  Com- 
mittee, since  all  have  had  problems  and  difficulties  in  the  negotiating 
of  research  and  development  contracts.  The  only  reason  the  present 
interdepartmental  committee  has  not  taken  some  action  in  this  area 
before  is  that  it  is  waiting  until  the  Stewart  report  is  formally  presented. 

General  Eisenhower,  while  he  was  Chief  of  StafT,  laid  down  the 
principle  of  separating  research  and  development  contracts  from  those 
for  procurement  of  supplies  and  routine  services,  when  he  set  up  a 
separate  General  StaflF  division  to  handle  research  and  development 
matters.  In  research  and  development  contracts  what  the  government 
is  really  buying  is  competence  of  individuals  and  organizations  in 
fields  in  which  it  may  reasonably  be  expected  that  the  solution  to  a 
problem  may  be  obtained.  In  addition  to  the  scientists  and  technol- 
ogists of  an  institution,  it  is  important  that  correct  evaluation  be  made 
of  the  financial  and  business  administrators  who  constitute  the  other 
half  of  the  team  and,  as  such,  are  the  invisible  resources  of  the  insti- 
tution. By  the  very  nature  of  governmental  operations,  the  contractual 
relationship  is  bound  to  be  more  complicated  than  between  private 
organizations.  The  fact  that  competent  scientists  and  engineers  whose 


MILITARY   RESEARCH  175 

work  is  desired  under  contract  are  to  be  found  in  the  university,  and 
the  competence  of  the  university  itself,  are  principally  due  to  the 
educational  environment  as  a  fountainhead  of  learning;  and  military 
research  contracts  must  not  effect  any  modification  of  this  environment 
or  disturb  normal  university  operations  if  the  most  efficient  and  effective 
results  are  to  be  obtained.  The  government  and  the  university  must 
both  be  ever  aware  of  the  fact  that  just  because  the  money  is  available, 
certain  fields  of  science  are  apt  to  be  emphasized  at  the  expense  of 
others.  We  in  the  Army  are  now  approaching  the  development  stage 
of  many  of  our  weapons  begun  either  during  or  shortly  after  the  war, 
and  this  fact,  combined  with  the  seriousness  of  the  international 
situation  today,  causes  a  tendency  to  divert  money  and  attention  from 
new  fundamental  knowledge  to  development  projects  of  more  imme- 
diate value  to  us.  However,  giving  sole  attention  to  the  short-range 
point  of  view  would  be  dangerous  for  the  nation  in  the  long  run. 

Finally,  we  can  appreciate  how  averse  you  are  to  the  danger  of 
cancellation  of  large  contracts  before  their  completion.  Such  cancel- 
lation might  leave  you  with  long-term  commitments  in  staff,  facilities, 
and  graduate  students  which  would  probably  be  financially  and  edu- 
cationally embarrassing.  Here,  too,  the  problem  of  balance  enters  in; 
a  research  program  that  is  well  balanced  between  governmental  and 
industrial  sponsorship  will  offset  this  danger  to  a  great  degree.  We 
shall  be  sacrificing  the  services  of  many  competent  institutions  if  we 
allow  them  to  lose  ground  because  of  miUtary  contract  obligations.  In 
all  nonprofit  organizations,  there  must  be  an  opportunity  to  recover 
costs  and  at  the  same  time  to  advance  the  aims  of  these  institutions. 

1ET  us  now  consider  some  of  the  advantages  of  miHtary-sponsored 
J  research  in  the  university,  which,  in  my  opinion,  far  outweigh  the 
problems  I  have  just  mentioned. 

Military-sponsored  research  extends  the  service  which  the  scientists 
and  scholars  of  the  country  can  make  to  the  national  welfare.  We  are 
able  to  obtain  the  services  of  men  with  the  best  brains  and  skills  in  the 
country  in  this  fashion;  otherwise  they  would  be  beyond  our  reach. 
By  a  system  of  contracts  with  you  and  the  lending  of  scientists  on  your 
faculty  to  us  on  a  rotation  basis,  we  do  not  deprive  you  of  their  services. 


176  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

Of  outstanding  advantage  is  the  contribution  which  sponsored 
research  is  making  toward  the  training  of  graduate  science  and  engi- 
neering students.  By  providing  expensive  facilities  and  financial  aid 
to  graduate  schools,  the  government  research  program  is  assisting  the 
universities  to  meet  the  problem  of  enormous  shortages  of  scientists 
and  engineers  which  developed  during  the  war  years.  That  problem 
is  being  solved  much  more  rapidly  than  had  been  thought  possible 
at  first. 

Not  only  has  this  sponsored  research  increased  the  capacity  for 
training  advanced  students,  but  in  most  instances  it  has  improved  the 
quality  of  their  advanced  education  as  far  as  actual  practical  experience 
and  superior  facilities  are  concerned.  In  the  engineering  fields,  partic- 
ularly, new  dimensions  to  graduate  training  have  been  added  by  work 
on  large  and  important  government  projects.  The  large-scale  projects 
afford  young  men  and  women  in  the  universities  the  opportunity  to 
acquire  research  techniques  which  can  be  learned  only  through  partic- 
ipating in  organized  team  research.  Following  such  training,  students 
are  more  immediately  useful  to  industry  and  government  research 
laboratories  than  they  could  possibly  be  under  the  pre-war  smaller- 
scale  training  methods,  which  depended  more  on  theory  than  on  actual 
practice. 

Such  sponsored  research  programs  also  help  increase  the  output  of 
future  scientists  and  engineers  by  enabling  universities  to  provide  more 
and  better  equipment.  In  the  past,  a  student  working  on  his  thesis 
had  to  spend  much  valuable  time  building  his  own  equipment,  fre- 
quently of  a  type  that  a  competent  technician  should  be  hired  to  build. 
Not  only  is  more  adequate  and  more  valuable  equipment  made  possible 
through  the  financial  aid  found  in  sponsored  research,  but  with  the 
increasing  expensiveness  of  scientific  equipment  and  instrumentation, 
such  items  as  cyclotrons  and  wind  tunnels  can  often  be  obtained  only 
with  the  help  of  outside  funds. 

The  problem  of  military  security  and  patents  imposing  restrictions 
on  the  publication  and  discussion  of  research  results  should  not  have 
to  arise  within  the  university.  Only  in  cases  of  dire  necessity  should 
the  university  be  asked  to  accept  restricted  research.  Unfortunately, 
in  a  world  in  which  freedom  itself  is  in  too  many  places  at  a  premium, 


MILITARY    RESEARCH  177 

science,  too,  must  bear  the  burden  of  a  certain  amount  of  sensible  and 
necessary  security.  Laxity  in  application  may  give  the  enemy  the 
scientific  advantages  necessary  to  achieve  victory;  too  stringent  regu- 
lations, on  the  other  hand,  may  prevent  the  continuous  cross-fertiliza- 
tion of  ideas  so  necessary  to  fruitful  scientific  eflort,  and  the  resulting 
slowing  of  progress  and  development  might  let  us  fall  prey  to  an  alert 
aggressor.  The  implications  of  atomic  energy  have  made  the  need  for 
security  precautions  apparent  to  all.  In  view  of  present  international 
developments,  we  shall  continue  to  disseminate  basic  scientific  knowl- 
edge widely,  but  the  military  feel  that  increased  protection  must 
always  be  given  to  applied  knowledge  and  technical  information  about 
equipment.  We  think  that  we  should  not  take  classification  restrictions 
of?  end  items  and  specific  gadgets — in  general,  military  weapons — 
which  have  been  developed  as  a  result  of  scientific  knowledge. 

The  government,  because  it  may  be  in  a  better  position  financially 
to  deal  with  the  university,  should  not  attempt  to  interfere  with  the 
close  and  fruitful  association  between  industry  and  the  universities 
which  has  grown  up  through  the  years.  This  association  has  greatly 
strengthened  our  schools  of  science  and  engineering  as  well  as  the 
large  industrial  firms  of  the  country.  During  the  war  one  of  the 
greatest  assets  we  had  was  our  highly  developed  industrial  research 
mechanism  and  production  capacity,  which  will  continue  to  constitute 
a  vital  national  resource. 

I  DO  NOT  think  I  need  to  point  out  to  you  the  seriousness  of  the  world 
situation  today.  Should  we  have  to  light  a  war  in  the  near  future, 
we  would  in  all  probability  have  to  fight  it  with  only  slightly  improved 
versions  of  our  World  War  II  weapons.  I  am  speaking  now  only  of 
the  Army,  although  I  believe  the  same  applies  to  the  Navy  and  Air 
Force.  Atomic  explosives,  radioactive  materials,  and  chemical  agents 
all  give  promise  of  results  as  military  weapons  on  a  scale  many  times 
greater  than  is  possible  with  our  conventional  weapons,  but  their  use 
has  not  been  perfected,  with  the  exception,  of  course,  of  the  atomic 
bomb.  When  perfected  and  used,  it  is  problematical  as  to  whether  the 
end  results  and  the  cost  will  justify  their  use. 

It  seems  to  me  that  our  greatest  defense  lies  in  making  our  country 


178  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

SO  Strong  militarily  and  economically  through  scientific  and  industrial 
supremacy  that  no  aggressor  nation  will  dare  attack  us  for  fear  of 
instant  retaliation,  totally  destroying  its  abilty  and  will  to  continue 
fighting.  Continued  and  intensive  military  research  is,  therefore,  a 
paramount  element  in  our  national  security.  It  requires  the  full 
support  of  all  the  citizens  of  this  country,  but  particularly  the  support 
of  those  of  you  in  the  scientific  and  engineering  segment  of  our 
population.  We  need  your  help  in  solving  many  problems  that  reach 
far  beyond  the  military,  but  nevertheless  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the 
outcome  of  total  war.  There  are  problems  regarding  such  matters  as 
psychological  and  propaganda  warfare  which  are  being  studied  in  our 
General  Research  Program;  the  various  aspects  of  our  arctic  program 
designed  to  enable  us  to  protect  our  northernmost  boundaries;  the 
weather  and  how  it  can  be  adapted  to  suit  our  purposes  and  not  those 
of  the  enemy;  the  problem  of  our  diminishing  natural  resources  and 
scarcity  of  strategic  materials  with  which  to  produce  the  weapons  of 
war;  and  finally,  better  means  of  collecting  and  disseminating  scientific 
information  to  avoid  duplication  of  effort  and  to  produce  speedier 
results. 

There  is  now  widespread  recognition  by  progressive  military  men 
of  the  effective  role  of  scientists  in  conducting  studies  of  the  military 
applications  of  their  findings.  More  and  more  you  will  see  scientists 
becoming  full-time  partners  on  military  staffs  for  peacetime  defense 
planning.  The  striking  contributions  of  scientists  in  such  varied  com- 
bat operations  as  the  Battle  of  Britain,  the  anti-submarine  warfare,  the 
invasion  of  Normandy  and  similar  invasions  in  the  Pacific,  the  bomb- 
ing of  Germany  and  Japan — all  make  me  predict  that  scientists  will 
always  be  an  important  part  of  the  staffs  of  field  commanders  in  war. 
It's  a  sound,  healthy  arrangement  and  one  that  augurs  well  for  our 
national  security. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  INDUSTRIAL  RESEARCH 
By  E.  C.  Bain 

EVEN  to  those  whose  daily  occupations  are  with  scientific  research, 
its  myriad  branches  and  its  infinitude  of  fruits  are  a  little  bewil- 
dering at  times.  One  is  tempted  to  try  simplifying  the  whole 
matter  by  tracing  it  all  back  to  man's  early  primitive  curiosity  and  his 
first  faint  ambition  to  "use  his  head"  to  save  himself  drudgery  and 
discomfort.  But  there  is  a  danger  in  simplification  because  it  leads  too 
enticingly  into  over-simplification.  Somewhere,  man  acquired  the 
mental  device  of  logic,  and  then  the  objective  method  of  accelerated 
learning;  that  is,  the  tentative  hypothesis  and  the  critical  experiment 
to  test  it.  These  he  found  good  and  an  enduring  urge  was  upon  him. 
Perhaps  these  steady  creative  drives,  in  part,  have  brought  us  all  the 
way  to  this  inquiry  into  the  significance  of  research,  and  of  industrial 
research  in  particular,  in  this  seventy-fifth  anniversary  year  at  The  Ohio 
State  University. 

However  this  may  be,  we  are  discussing  a  human  activity  which 
has  molded  the  very  pattern  of  our  daily  comings  and  goings,  for  ours 
is  a  society  wherein  industry,  given  technological  guidance  by  indus- 
trial research,  is  a  dominant  social  influence.  The  unparalleled  stand- 
ards of  living  for  all  in  America  support  the  premise  that  American 
industry  has  succeeded  in  its  objective  of  producing  more  needed  goods 
and  services  for  less  of  the  time  and  effort  of  all  its  citizens.  If  we 
could  not  arrive  at  this  judgment,  then  the  interest  in  industrial 
research  would  indeed  be  limited.  If  the  premise  is  valid,  then  perhaps 
it  is  enough  that  industrial  research  is  the  technical  reconnaissance 
branch  of  an  agency  which,  in  itself,  fulfills  great  material  needs  of  men. 

Research  in  industry  as  presently  organized  was  in  its  infancy  in 
America  at  the  turn  of  the  century.  In  America,  things  seem  naturally 
to  grow  to  bigness,  be  they  government,  labor,  education,  agriculture, 
or  industry.  Industrial  research  itself  is  today  an  activity  in  which 
well  over  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand  persons  are  gainfully 
employed  and  for  which  American  industry  is  probably  spending 
nearly  five  hundred  million  dollars  annually.   This  is,  in  any  units,  a 

J  79 


i8o 


SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 


human  force  of  such  magnitude  that  its  potentialities  warrant  careful 
guidance  so  that  it  will  serve  the  people  of  the  nation  well.  This  guid- 
ance, in  our  competitive  society,  may  ultimately  be  supplied  in  an 
unequivocal  manner  by  the  final  authority,  the  consuming  buyer. 

Forty  years  ago  we  should  have  discussed  industrial  research  in 
a  mood  of  conjecture;  depending  upon  our  several  temperaments,  we 
might  have  been  mildly  skeptical  or  hopefully  speculative,  but  almost 
certainly  we  should  have  been  prophetically  vague.  At  a  conference 
held  at  that  time  we  should  probably  have  heard  some  stirring  reports 
from  a  few  young  research  organizations  in  America's  most  courageous 
industries.  Returning  visitors  from  Germany  would  have  reported  the 
amazing  employment  of  thousands  of  exceedingly  well-trained  sci- 
entists in  making  discoveries  of  great  usefulness  in  the  chemical  and 
metallurgical  industries  and  in  the  manufacture  of  fine  equipment 
and  instruments.  Mention  would  have  been  made  of  the  hundreds  of 
German  graduate  students  and  teachers  sternly  enthusiastic  about  their 
several  researches.  Before  another  decade,  we  were  to  become  very 
well  aware,  indeed,  of  the  industrial  might  of  Germany  based  upon 
the  utilization  of  scientific  research  by  the  German  industries. 

It  was  during  World  War  I  that  the  general  pubHc  first  began  to 
read  of  research  and  to  talk  about  it,  and  in  a  quite  well-informed 
way.  It  scarcely  need  be  recalled  how  almost  everyone  in  America 
with  background  and  aptitude  for  research  was  pressed  into  scientific 
service  by  the  time  of  the  Armistice  in  1918;  how  we  found  potash  for 
use  where  it  was  really  needed,  made  sulphuric  acid  without  lead 
plates,  contrived  creditable  submarine  detection  devices,  made  optical 
glass,  synthesized  photographic  and  other  complex  chemicals  hitherto 
purchased  abroad.  American  industry  had  full  proof  that  American 
scientists  could  achieve  in  a  hurry  when  called  upon;  perhaps  our 
scientists  themselves  were  somewhat  surprised  at  their  own  compe- 
tence. The  important  point  is  that  by  1920,  industrial  research  was 
established  here  in  three  hundred  laboratories  employing  about  nine 
thousand  people.  In  retrospect  it  seems  that  there  was  almost  as  much 
awe  of  research  at  that  time  as  there  was  understanding  of  it,  but  it 
functioned  well  and  grew  continually  until  the  depression  years  in  the 
early  thirties,  when,  even  then,  the  retrenchments  were  less  than  might 


INDUSTRIAL  RESEARCH  l8l 

have  seemed  justifiable.  In  two  decades,  1920  to  1940,  the  number  of 
industrial  research  establishments  and  the  total  employees  increased 
over  sevenfold.  Since  then  the  activity  has  almost  doubled;  and  what 
achievements  these  latest  years  have  brought  forth! 

There  is  not  time  here  to  give  even  a  proper  word  of  admiring 
appraisal  in  appreciation  of  the  crowning  research  achievements  of 
the  recent  great  research  teams  of  World  War  II  who  created  radar 
and  the  proximity  fuse,  and  finally  exemplified  Einstein's  compact 
little  equation  E  =  Mr,  but  this  time  with  an  accompanying  release 
of  a  reported  39  billion  Btu  per  pound  of  fissionable  fuel.  And  for 
a  demonstration  of  scientific  ingenuities  assembled  in  one  device  the 
image  orthicon  of  television  deserves  a  prominent  place. 

WHILE  the  sciences  have  expanded  tremendously  since  1940  and 
the  processes  of  research  and  invention  have  grown  compli- 
cated, the  objectives  of  industrial  research  can,  nevertheless,  be  simply 
stated.  In  brief  they  are,  for  a  large  enterprise,  about  as  follows:  (i)  to 
improve  products  and  develop  new  ones  for  old  and  new  markets;  (2) 
to  improve  processes  and  equipment  in  respect  to  cost,  safety  and  com- 
fort of  operators,  hygiene,  and  work  environment;  (3)  to  select  and 
adapt  raw  materials  for  conservation,  and  to  offset  depletion  and  de- 
terioration of  raw-material  supply;  (4)  to  assist  in  instrumentation, 
standardization,  and  quality  control;  (5)  to  aid  customers  in  best  utiliz- 
ing the  products;  and  (6)  to  provide  training  in  technological  matters. 
With  great  nicety  Raymond  Stevens,  of  A.  D.  Little,  Inc.,  has  put 
all  this  into  a  comprehensive  definition: 

Industrial  research  consists  of  organized  and  systematic  search  for  new 
scientific  facts  and  principles  which  may  be  applicable  to  the  creation  of 
new  wealth  and  presupposes  the  employment  of  men  educated  in  the 
various  scientific  disciplines. 

Acceptable  definitions  have  been  set  up  for  varieties  of  research 
ranging  from  basic,  through  fundamental,  background,  and  applied, 
to  development.  Industrial  research  is  emphatically  "applied,"  but  it 
employs  them  all;  and  perhaps  it  is  not  of  controlling  importance  to 
discriminate  closely  among  these  overlapping  categories.  Nor  is  it 
necessarily   a   characteristic   of   the   research    itself,   that   someone    in 


1 82  SEVENTY-FIFTH  ANNIVERSARY 

industry  may  be  anxiously  awaiting  the  results  to  employ  them  in 
improved  goods  for  sale. 

A  composite  schematic  sequence  for  a  typical  industrial  research 
and  development  project  in  some  industries  might  be  summarized  as 
follows : 

1.  A  need  for  an  improved  product  or  process  is  perceived. 

2.  A  domain  of  investigation  appropriate  to  the  problem  is  selected  by 
research  management  and  outlined  as  a  quest  for  new  knowledge 
instead  of  a  commercial  desire. 

3.  A  group  under  responsible  leadership  is  assigned  to  the  project. 
(The  project  may  be  divided  into  more  attackable  parts.) 

4.  The  existing  knowledge  is  reviewed,  the  literature  is  critically 
read,  and  after  individual  preparation  for  a  conference,  the  project 
is  discussed  and  a  first  attack  decided  upon — but  only  the  first. 

5.  Exploratory  work  is  done  in  the  laboratory  to  gain  firsthand  ac- 
quaintance if  no  tentative  hypothesis  is  yet  forthcoming. 

6.  When  the  tentative  hypothesis  is  formulated,  it  is  tested  by  critical 
experimentation. 

7.  The  previous  step  is  repeated  and  repeated  as  required. 

8.  The  new  knowledge  is  applied  on  a  minimum  scale  of  embodiment. 

9.  The  pilot-plant  scale  is  operated  until  successful  operating  prob- 
abilities are  secured. 

JO.  Finally,  the  research  department  transmits  a  report  with  the  full 
functional  specifications  and  recommendations  to  the  manufactur- 
ing or  other  department  concerned. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  that  such  an  orderly  sequence 
is  rarely  wholly  followed.  The  exploratory  period  may  be  short  or 
it  may  be  very  long.  One  person  cannot  constrain  another  to  discover. 
In  fundamental  research  work,  the  team  principle,  with  groups  of 
constant  personnel  make-up  during  the  investigation,  is  generally  very 
effective.  Both  the  evolution  of  leadership  and  the  technique  of  joined 
efforts  are  fostered  by  this  method.  Scientists,  like  almost  all  other 
people,  dislike  belonging  to  a  losing  team  and  they  play  to  win. 

ONE  might  infer  from  all  this  that  the  year  1900  marked  the  begin- 
ning of  the  application  of  science  and  the  scientific  methods  to 
industry.  This  is,  of  course,  not  true.  There  were  precursors  to  the 
research  era,  individuals  who  made  notable  contributions  of  science — 


INDUSTRIAL  RESEARCH  183 

but  essentially  as  individuals.  Samuel  Luther  Dana,  for  example,  in 
the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  had  a  real  laboratory  in  which 
he  studied  the  bleaching  and  dyeing  of  textiles  with  great  practical 
profit.  In  this  pre-research  era  the  names  of  several  stand  out  as 
pioneers  in  applying  scientific  techniques  to  industry:  Fricke,  a  Ger- 
man chemist,  hired  by  Carnegie  for  his  blast  furnaces;  Benjamin 
Silliman  at  Yale,  who  distilled  and  fractionated  petroleum;  Charles  B. 
Dudley,  who  gave  up  the  teaching  of  science  in  a  military  school  to 
join  the  staff  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad;  Durfee,  who  examined 
chemically  the  materials  entering  the  early  converters  of  the  Kelly  or 
Bessemer  type.  Some  of  these  men  of  inventive  genius,  just  prior  to 
the  establishment  of  early  modern  research  in  industry,  virtually 
created  new  industries  out  of  their  investigations;  Eli  Whitney,  Robert 
Fulton,  Ehas  Howe,  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse,  Cyrus  McCormick,  John  W. 
Hyatt,  and  Charles  Goodyear  are  typical.  The  productive  period  of 
some  of  these  American  geniuses  who,  almost  single-handed,  founded 
industries,  extended  well  into  the  new  research  era.  Names  which 
typify  the  connection  of  the  older  era  of  the  individual  with  the  new 
organized  system  of  industrial  research  include:  E.  G.  Acheson,  the 
discoverer  of  silicon  carbide  and  a  process  of  graphitizing  carbon; 
Charles  M.  Hall,  who  electroplated  aluminum;  and  Leo  H.  Baekeland, 
who  improved  the  process  of  making  a  phenolformaldehyde  resin. 

Seventy-five  years  ago  the  principal  source  of  science  was  the 
university  or  college,  and  clearly  the  great  industrial  era  could  not 
have  flourished  until  a  sufficient  number  of  men  were  scientifically 
trained  to  supply  the  new  technologies  required  in  the  great  period 
of  competitive  industrial  expansion.  Between  1845  and  1870,  Sheffield 
Scientific  School  at  Yale,  Columbia  School  of  Mines,  Worcester  Poly- 
technic Institute,  and  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology  were 
established,  the  latter,  in  part,  "to  meet  the  more  limited  aims  of  such 
as  desire  a  scientific  preparation  for  special  industrial  pursuits  .  .  . 
having  their  foundations  in  the  exact  sciences."  The  great  boon  to 
scientific  (and  other)  education  was  the  Morrill,  or  Land-Grant  Act 
of  1862.  Purdue  University,  Pennsylvania  State  College,  the  state  uni- 
versities of  Illinois  and  of  Ohio  are  among  those  organized  under  that 
Act  which  became  great  universities.  The  purpose  of  these  institutions 
was  clearly  stated  by  Andrew  D.  White  in  1874:   "It  was  to  provide 


184  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

fully  for  an  industrial,  scientific  and  general  education  suited  to  our 
land  and  time — an  education  in  which  scientific  and  industrial  studies 
should  be  knit  into  its  very  core.  .  .  ." 

A  LTHOUGH  the  scientific  schools  of  Europe  were  flourishing  earlier, 
y~\  America  has  taken  the  leadership  now  and  the  objectives  of  the 
founders  seem  to  have  been  abundantly  realized.  Many  schools  were 
established  and  endowed  by  private  contributions,  but  this  source  of 
support  is  rapidly  drying  up.  Means  for  the  training  of  men  for 
research  who  have  aptitude  and  the  necessary  determination  must  be 
provided  if  we  are  to  maintain  our  technological  position  in  keeping 
with  the  requirements  of  today.  An  idea  of  those  requirements  has 
been  set  up  by  the  President's  Scientific  Research  Board;  in  the  report 
by  the  chairman,  John  R.  Steelman,  it  is  estimated  that  the  nation's 
research  bill  for  1947  was  $1,160,000,000,  over  half  of  which  was  paid 
by  the  federal  government  and  some  40  per  cent  by  industry.  This 
board  recommends  doubling  this  expenditure  by  1957,  or,  in  any  event, 
the  expenditure  of  not  less  than  i  per  cent  of  the  national  income 
each  year  for  all  research. 

All  factions  seem  to  be  agreed  that  certain  domains  of  the  public 
welfare  must  look  to  the  government,  national  or  state,  for  active 
support  of,  and  participation  in,  the  needed  research.  The  national 
defense,  pre-eminently,  and  also  the  improvement  of  agriculture  and 
the  public  health,  the  establishment  of  standards  of  measurements  and 
the  applicable  methods  therefor,  are  in  their  nature  peculiarly  consti- 
tuted for  governmental  research.  Valuable  background  research,  as  an 
accompaniment,  has  been  well  accomplished  also  in  government  insti- 
tutions. Any  vast,  emergency  investigations,  should  they  become 
imperative,  which  are  beyond  the  financial  scope  of  industries  or  even 
groups  of  industries,  would  of  necessity  be  sponsored  by  the  govern- 
ment with  taxpayers'  money.  Because  of  the  peculiar  and  unique 
nature  of  the  materials  and  the  need  for  secrecy,  it  is  understandably 
desirable  that  considerable  parts  of  the  research  for  defense  be  carried 
out  in  government-owned  and  operated  facilities. 

As  for  the  responsibilities  which  fall  to  industry,  it  is  agreed  that 
industrial  research  is  at  an  unprecedented  level,  and  that  it  is  desirable 
that  such  research  be  not  reduced  in  effectiveness.  The  Steelman  Re- 


INDUSTRIAL   RESEARCH  185 

port  States:  "Together  with  advances  in  basic  research,  it  provides  one 
drive  for  an  expanding  economy  and  for  a  rising  Uving  standard  for 
our  people."  The  report  further  suggests  in  connection  with  the  expan- 
sion in  industrial  research  facilities:  "We  should  provide  a  favorable 
climate  for  such  expansion  through  tax  incentives  and  other  established 
methods,  without  making  direct  grants  to  industry."  The  competitive 
atmosphere  of  industry  is  tremendously  stimulating  to  certain  types 
of  applied  research  and  development,  and  its  almost  automatic  yard- 
stick of  practical  accomplishment  makes  it  a  vital  and  dependable  aid 
to  industrial  progress.  That  is  not  to  say  that  groups  of  competitive 
units  of  one  industrial  type  may  not,  with  advantage  to  everyone, 
co-operate  in  assigning  some  of  the  background  research  to  well- 
adapted  agencies  for  handling.  They  may  still  all  compete  aggressively 
on  a  market  race-course  which,  through  such  joint  effort,  has  been 
improved  to  better  the  performance  of  all  the  competitors. 

It  is  not  difficult,  indeed  it  is  usually  singularly  easy,  to  bring  about 
full  co-operation  among  research  people.  Any  who  have  heard  General 
L.  H.  Campbell,  Jr.,  describe  his  Ordnance-Industry  Team  for  Fire- 
power, will  recall  that  the  Army  regarded  highly  the  co-operation 
shown  in  that  team.  There  is  no  possible  reason  to  imagine  that 
anything  but  close  co-operation  in  research  could  continue  between 
industry  and  the  National  Military  Establishment.  Co-operation  is  at 
its  best  when  it  fosters  mutual  aid  and  prevents  interference. 

THIS  leads  us  now  to  the  central  subject  which  has  been  impHcit  in 
much  that  we  have  covered.  The  universities  have  a  critically 
important  part  in  the  nation's  research  program.  From  the  universities 
must  come  the  young  scientists  prepared  to  become  competent  research 
workers.  To  do  the  research  job  ahead,  these  university-trained  men 
must  continue  to  have  great  ability  as  well  as  to  be  sufficiently  numer- 
ous. At  the  moment,  in  part  because  of  the  Veteran's  Readjustment 
Act,  they  are  probably  being  graduated  in  nearly  as  large  numbers  as 
are  presently  required  in  the  physical  and  perhaps  also  in  the  biological 
sciences.  For  the  universities  to  accomplish  this  task,  certain  favorable 
conditions  should  exist.  It  is,  I  believe,  a  reflection  of  the  university 
opinion  that  the  teaching  staff  should  not  be  depleted  to  fill  other 
needs.    Furthermore,  there  is,  I  believe,  general  agreement  that  the 


l86  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

teachers  of  science  should  have  frequent  and  close  contact  with  the 
lively  kinds  of  research,  such  as  are  fostered  in  industry  and  in  the 
many  research  activities  in  the  governmental  domain.  Only  in  some 
such  way  can  the  research  point  of  view  permeate  the  teaching  of 
undergraduates  and  dominate  sufficiently  the  postgraduate  work. 
While  most  research  and  university  people  feel  that  education  is  the 
raison  d'etre,  the  business,  of  the  university  and  the  teaching  staff, 
nevertheless,  training  for  research  is  best  accomplished  in  an  environ- 
ment where  research  is  "in  the  very  air."  There  appears  to  be  a  satis- 
factory solution  now  well  established;  for  happily  there  has  been  a 
mutual  advantage  in  the  bringing  by  industries  and  government  of  a 
portion  of  their  research  work  to  the  university,  whose  teachers  may 
thereby  better  indoctrinate  their  advanced  students  in  the  prosecution 
of  research.  Teachers  who  do  not  do  full-time  teaching  may  do  the 
best  instructing  of  advanced  students  in  science. 

One  source  of  such  co-operative  industrial  research  is  the  smaller 
industry  with  a  narrower  scope  of  science  fields  for  which  even  a  small 
laboratory  of  its  own  would  be  burdensomely  large.  Another  source 
may  be  the  marginal  problems  of  a  large  industry  which  fall  in  a 
domain  foreign  to  its  principal  technologies,  but  which  are,  none  the 
less,  highly  important.  Actually,  many  of  the  large  industries  with 
great  experimental  establishments  are  referring  a  substantial  part  of 
their  work  to  university  and  other  outside  research  institutions.  Such 
"farming  out"  of  research  may  possibly  amount  to  as  much  as  lo  per 
cent  though  no  actual  figures  are  available.  In  a  general  way  the 
impression  is  created  among  the  leaders  of  industrial  research  that  the 
investigations  made  in  the  universities  are  of  top-rank  quality  with  a 
freshness  of  viewpoint  not  always  secured  within  the  industrial  lab- 
oratories. Perhaps  the  industries  ultimately  gain  almost  as  much 
through  the  indirect  improvement  in  the  training  of  their  future 
employees  as  from  the  actual  reports  rendered  by  the  university  con- 
sultants. Grants-in-aid  and  contracts  for  work  in  definite  directions  are 
both  desirable. 

LEADERS  of  industrial  research  are  not  usually  active  teachers — they 
J  are  not  often  experienced  in  pedagogy.  Apparently,  however,  they 
are  coming  to  believe  that  they  now  have  some  elementary  notions. 


INDUSTRIAL  RESEARCH 


187 


at  least,  of  the  qualifications  the  college  graduates  should  have  for 
research  careers.  We  may  venture  to  guess  a  few  of  them.  It  seems 
that  (i)  they  should  be  able  to  think  habitually  in  a  mathematical 
pattern,  that  is,  mathematics  should  be  an  everyday  tool,  a  practical 
aid  to  setting  up  hypotheses,  not  merely  a  matter  of  manipulations; 
(2)  they  should  imagine  quantitatively  rather  than  descriptively;  (3)  if 
the  graduates  are  chemists,  they  should  also  be  well  grounded  in 
physics;  (4)  if  they  are  physicists,  they  should  have  some  facility  in 
the  disciplines  of  physical  chemistry;  (5)  they  need  not  have  a  wealth 
of  detailed  knowledge  of  any  domain,  but  should  be  able  quickly  to 
acquire  it.  Perhaps,  above  all,  one  might  say,  they  should  greatly 
desire  to  do  research  competently,  and  if  so,  they  will  fulfill  these 
requirements  to  meet  their  own  high  standards  of  performance. 

And  what,  one  may  ask,  are  these  research  people  to  do?  Some 
suggestions  are  immediately  at  hand.  Now,  while  we  learn  to  use 
substitutes,  we  may  have  to  conserve  some  metals,  the  ores  of  which 
are  not  being  found  in  quantities  to  maintain  the  reserves.  Gradually, 
we  shall  have  to  learn  to  use  even  iron  ores  of  inferior  quality  to 
produce  steel  of  sustained  quality;  the  sulphur  content  of  metallurgical 
coke  grows  higher  and  higher.  It  is  time  to  intensify  the  research  on 
liquefaction  of  coal  against  the  day  when  the  petroleum  supply,  which 
so  amazingly  resists  our  enormous  consumption,  really  begins  to  fail. 
Perhaps  powdered  coal  is  more  usable  directly  than  we  now  know. 
Soil  for  efficient  agriculture  must  be  enriched  and  maintained  to  feed 
a  growing  population.  These  are  all  largely  matters  for  industrial 
research. 

Men  still  feel  they  spend  too  much  effort  in  building  adequate 
housing  for  themselves.  What  a  boon  would  be  a  really  low-cost, 
low-maintenance  house!  We  could  use  more  basic  materials  of  con- 
struction, tough  and  strong  inside  with  aesthetically  treated  surfaces 
to  resist  moisture,  sunshine,  and  heat.  Transportation  is  amenable  to 
improvement.  In  all  these  items  we  are  still  a  long  way  from  the  field 
of  "gadgetry"  which  is  so  dear  to  Americans. 

A  wealth  of  new  devices  suggests  the  kind  of  unexpected  aid  to 
our  researchers  which  may  evolve  to  help  solve  the  more  difficult 
problems.  A  little  piece  of  germanium  and  a  bit  of  wire  may  replace 
a  vacuum  tube.   A  Krypton  light  flashes  3.3  billion  candle  power  of 


100  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

light  for  a  few  microseconds  when  triggered  by  an  external  voltage. 
We  treat  synthetic  rubber  at  low  temperature  instead  of  the  usual 
elevated  temperature  and  avoid  adverse  reactions.  Servo-mechanisms 
do  half  the  control  work  in  myriad  operations,  while  we  do  counting, 
and  even  fantastically  long  mathematical  manipulations,  electronically. 
Wetting  agents  emulsify  almost  anything,  including  cutting  oils;  they 
help  put  out  fires,  beneficiate  ores,  degrease  metal  stampings,  and  aid 
in  dust  removal  from  air.  Silicones  make  lubricants  at  once  applicable 
to  both  high  and  low  temperatures.  Many  of  you  are  adding  to  this 
list.  It  would  not  appear  that  industrial  research  is  in  imminent  danger 
of  abandonment. 

THERE  is  no  basis  for  regarding  the  nation-wide  employment  of 
research  as  a  trivial  or  even  an  obvious  matter.  Our  hopes  and 
assurances  were  high  for  a  good  world  in  the  first  decade  of  the  cen- 
tury. By  the  attainment  of  objectivity,  the  subjugation  of  emotion  and 
anxiety  for  self  in  the  pursuit  of  science,  we  had  begun  an  era  of  rapid 
understanding  and  control  of  more  and  more  of  the  whole  physical 
environment.  We  traveled  a  high  road  of  aspiration.  But  the  world 
could  not  escape  two  almost  global  armed  clashes  of  hostile  camps  in 
three  decades.  Did  these  tragedies  of  aggression  occur  because  Man 
is  inherently  incapable  of  dealing  objectively  with  any  questions  touch- 
ing upon  his  own  individual  or  collective  self?  If  not,  can  our  social 
science  soon  break  through  to  some  new  objective  level  in  the  com- 
prehension of  human  relations,  as  epochal  as  was  the  era  of  steam  or 
the  nuclear  denouement  in  the  physical  realm — in  time,  perhaps?  Then 
we  must  be  patient  and  to  dare  be  patient  we  must  be  competent  and 
technologically  strong.  Small  as  even  the  day-by-day  advances  in  sci- 
ence and  technology  may  seem  by  comparison  with  Man's  central 
problem  of  peace,  they  are,  nevertheless,  the  known  approaches  to 
strength,  the  things  to  be  done  now.  The  frontiers  of  technology  can 
still  be  pushed  to  widening  horizons.  These  things  we  know  how  to 
do,  with  the  devices  of  organization  and  distributed  responsibility; 
each  group  to  do  its  task  well,  so  as  not  to  fail  the  others. 

Where  could  we  turn,  if  we  would,  but  to  the  universities  for  the 
development  of  men  of  a  stature  to  meet  the  incalculable  problem  of 
the  preservation  of  Man's  dignity? 


THE  ROLE  OF  UNIVERSITY  RESEARCH 

By  Hugh  S.  Taylor 

THE  primary  functions  of  a  university  are  the  training  and  edu- 
cation of  students  and  the  accumulation  of  knowledge.  The 
university  must  be  judged  by  the  effectiveness  with  which  it 
discharges  these  responsibilities.  It  requires  for  the  task  as  intimate  an 
association  of  the  teacher-scholar  with  the  student  as  can  be  achieved. 
The  teacher  can  supply  the  background  of  accumulated  knowledge, 
draw  out  from  the  student  his  latent  potentialities  to  acquire  such 
knowledge  and  to  develop  his  critical  faculties.  As  master  and  disci- 
ple they  can  essay  the  tasks  of  new  scholarship,  venture  toward  the  yet 
unknown,  until  the  disciple  himself  becomes  the  master. 

In  the  years  between  two  world  wars  there  occurred  in  this  country 
the  fine  flowering  of  this  dual  role  of  the  university  in  the  area  of 
science,  the  intensification  of  the  educational  process,  and  the  develop- 
ment of  basic  research  in  science.  America  was  well  served,  when  the 
stress  came  for  the  second  time,  by  reason  of  that  educational  effort. 
The  experience  of  World  War  I  had  shown  that  to  meet  the  responsi- 
bilities of  world  leadership  which  victory  in  that  war  foreshadowed,  it 
would  be  necessary  for  America  to  assume  a  larger  share  in  the  proc- 
esses of  higher  education  and  of  scholarship  than  was  possible  when 
the  pioneers  were  opening  up  the  continent.  The  extension  of  the 
frontier  until  it  finally  disappeared  on  the  North  American  continent 
was  achieved  while  still  it  was  possible  to  live  in  relative  isolation  from 
the  ancient  strifes  of  the  European  continent,  its  wars  and  rumors  of 
wars.  American  technical  achievement  in  the  airplane,  however,  had 
already  provided  the  instrument  whereby  time  and  space  could  be 
annihilated,  whereby  isolation,  remoteness  from  Europe's  problems, 
was  at  an  end. 

It  was  a  wise  and  far-sighted  decision  which  in  the  early  1920's 
led  the  National  Research  Council  to  inaugurate  a  group  of  post- 
doctoral fellowships  in  mathematics,  physics,  chemistry,  and  the  bio- 
logical sciences.  It  was  the  objective  of  these  fellowships  to  produce 
a  group  of  research  scientists  who  would,  on  completion  of  their  train- 


190  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

ing,  return  to  the  universities  of  the  land  there  to  reproduce  their  kind 
and  thus,  by  a  snowball  effort,  multiply  rapidly  the  educational  per- 
sonnel to  meet  the  demands  in  instruction  and  research  which  a  call 
to  world  leadership  would  require.  The  co-operation  of  the  universities 
and,  at  the  same  time,  of  the  industries  multiplied  this  effort  still 
further  by  providing  groups  of  graduate  students  who  could  participate 
in  the  research  development,  assisting  both  professors  and  National 
Research  fellows.  In  their  turn  these  graduate  students  passed  either 
directly  to  industry  for  the  enlargement  of  the  research  effort  in  applied 
science  or,  via  the  National  Research  Fellowships,  to  the  reproduction 
process  in  the  universities. 

The  fruits  of  that  development  were  obvious  during  the  1930's 
and  especially  during  the  war  years.  The  universities  had  built  up  a 
potential  in  scientific  research  which  revealed  its  strength  in  the  Nobel 
Prizes  awarded  to  Urey,  Anderson,  Lawrence,  Rabi,  and  Stanley,  and 
other  Americans,  whose  early  training  was  assisted  by  the  National 
Research  Fellowships  or  their  equivalent  in  other  foundations.  During 
the  war  years  it  was  apparent  that  the  distinguished  leaders  of  the 
atomic-energy  project  were  drawn  in  large  measure  from  those  sci- 
entists whose  training  in  the  1920's  had  been  assisted  by  national  and 
international  research  fellowships,  a  further  confirmation  of  these 
techniques  of  development  for  research.  It  is  certain  that,  when  the 
full  record  of  the  nuclear  research  effort  is  known,  the  contributions  of 
American  scientists  to  basic  discoveries  will  be  still  more  prominent 
and  the  rewards  of  those  efforts  will  be  recognized  in  the  appropriate 
manner. 

While  this  change  has  been  occurring  in  the  American  scene,  a 
corresponding  retrogression  has  been  occurring  in  areas  of  Western 
Europe.  There,  political  action  initially  and  then  military  activity  have 
effectively  reduced  the  opportunities  for  and  the  potential  with  which 
basic  research  can  be  prosecuted.  The  postwar  conditions  in  much  of 
Western  Europe  will  inevitably  result  in  a  measurably  smaller  oppor- 
tunity for  basic  research  in  an  area  which,  hitherto,  had  been  the  most 
prolific  source  of  such  research  in  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  cen- 
turies. On  America  is  laid  the  responsibility  in  large  measure  to  take 
up  the  task — to  assume  the  obligation  to  replace  the  battered  centers  of 


UNIVERSITY   RESEARCH  IQI 

scientific  research  by  new  centers  where  the  human  values  of  enquiry, 
investigation,  and  discovery  can  be  fostered  and  maintained. 

Research  in  the  universities  must  be  directed  toward  the  far  hor- 
izon, not  to  the  proximate  issue.  It  should  be  concerned  rather  with  the 
basic  principles  than  with  the  technical  application.  In  times  of  emer- 
gency all  will  be  oriented  to  the  solution  of  the  urgent  problems,  but 
those  solutions  will  be  the  more  effective  the  greater  the  reserve  of 
basic  scientific  capital.  In  the  last  decade  we  have,  of  necessity,  been 
drawing  so  rapidly  on  accumulated  reserves  of  scientific  knowledge 
that  the  scientist's  pressing  problem  today  is  one  of  renewal  and 
rehabilitation.  It  must  be  recognized  that  the  more  comprehensive  the 
reserves  of  basic  scientific  knowledge  become  the  more  rapidly  can 
industry  and  technology  discover  the  technical  solution  and  its  appli- 
cation to  meet  stated  needs.  When  Einstein  stated  the  equivalence  of 
mass  and  energy  in  1905  no  one  could  foresee  the  atomic  bomb.  When 
Rutherford  bombarded  nitrogen  with  swift  alpha  particles  in  1919  and 
released  protons,  the  discovery  could  still  be  regarded  as  impractical. 
Even  the  discovery  of  the  neutron  and  its  application  as  a  swift 
chargeless  projectile  with  which  to  penetrate  the  hard  core  of  even 
the  heaviest  atoms,  as  the  researches  of  Fermi  revealed,  left  the  balance 
sheet  of  nuclear  energy  still  overwhelmingly  in  the  red.  Nevertheless, 
this  progression  of  "far-horizon"  researches  over  thirty  years  provided 
a  basic  scientific  capital  which  needed  only  the  observation  of  nuclear 
fission  by  Hahn  in  1939  to  be  rendered  fruitful,  and  which  led  swiftly 
and  speedily  via  the  nuclear  chain  process  to  the  atomic  age  and  all 
the  readjustments  that  this  will  involve,  not  only  in  science  but  also 
in  human  and  social  values. 

This  story  of  nuclear  science  is  only  the  latest  in  an  oft-repeated 
story  which  takes  us  back  to  the  researches  of  Faraday  and  Henry,  to 
Clerk  Maxwell  and  Hertz,  to  Pasteur,  to  Roentgen,  Becquerel,  and  the 
Curies  for  other  variants  of  the  same  theme.  Faraday,  it  is  said, 
when  asked  by  a  lady  the  significance  of  his  latest  discovery  replied, 
"Madame,  what  is  the  significance  of  a  newborn  babe?"  To  Mr. 
Gladstone,  who  queried  the  practical  value  of  a  new  scientific  fact,  the 
reply  was,  "Perhaps,  some  day,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  you  will  be  able 
to  tax  it." 


192  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

It  is  the  particular  obligation  of  the  university  to  provide  the 
capital  of  basic  knowledge  which  society  requires.  To  safeguard  our 
educational  inheritance  we  must  maintain  the  freedom  of  the  spirit  to 
roam  where  it  will.  That  is  the  basic  freedom  of  the  university  scholar. 
The  university  constitutes  an  ideal  environment  for  such  a  process.  A 
group  of  scholars,  with  no  immediate  problems  urgently  to  be  solved, 
in  association  with  a  graduate  student  body,  young,  alert,  vigorous, 
continually  reproducing  itself  in  the  university  environment,  gives  to 
this  effort  a  character  and  a  potential  that  other  centers  of  research 
oftentimes  lack.  Is  it  significant,  or  is  it  perhaps  attributable  to  the 
recent  origins  of  the  industrial  research  laboratory  that,  as  yet,  the 
major  contributions  in  basic  scientific  research  in  large  measure  still 
stem  from  the  university  laboratories?  Is  this  fertiUty  in  new  science 
to  be  ascribed  not  only  to  the  greater  freedom  of  scientific  enquiry 
that  the  university  offers,  but  does  it  depend  also  in  part  on  the  con- 
stantly renewed  sources  of  scholarly  personnel  in  these  areas.''  Is  the 
stream  of  annual  renewal  which  obtains  in  the  university  a  life-giving 
stream  which  flows  through  the  organism  maintaining  its  vigor,  its 
freshness,  and  its  fertility.?  Certain  it  is  that  through  the  constantly 
renewed  challenge  of  young  minds  the  creative  qualities  of  professors 
can  be  stimulated  and  maintained.  Is  it  not  true  that,  in  the  productive 
university  research  centers,  the  faculty  draws  rich  stores  of  strength  and 
inspiration  from  such  sources,  matches  with  such  assets  the  competition 
by  industry  with  larger  financial  facilities  and  superior  technical 
equipment .'' 

THERE  is  need  for  concern,  however,  that  the  balance  between  the 
university  on  the  one  hand  and  industry  and  government  on  the 
other,  which  is  at  all  times  a  delicate  balance,  shall  be  maintained. 
There  are  present  dangers  that  this  balance  may  well  be  disturbed. 
There  is  a  twofold  threat  which  the  events  of  the  last  decade  have 
produced.  One  lies  in  a  tendency  to  draw  away  too  rapidly  from  the 
university  its  trained  product.  The  other  lies  in  the  inability  of  non- 
profit organizations  such  as  the  universities,  whether  tax-supported  or 
endowed,  rapidly  to  adjust  their  economies  to  a  rising  spiral  of  prices, 
to  the  obvious  facts  of  an  inflationary  period.   This  depletion  of  uni- 


UNIVERSITY   RESEARCH  I93 

versity  resources  may  even  result  not  only  in  the  loss  of  the  trained 
product  but  also  in  the  loss  of  those  who  produce  such  product.  The 
realization  of  these  possibilities  must  be  the  major  concern  of  the  best 
minds  in  the  universities,  in  industry,  and  in  government. 

There  is  an  easy,  proximate  solution  of  these  present  difficulties 
but  we  must  ask  ourselves  whether  it  is  the  wise  and  long-range  solu- 
tion. Resources  can  be  made  quickly  available  to  the  universities  in 
the  form  of  grants  for  the  solution  of  immediate  problems  of  both 
industry  and  government.  That  solution,  however,  withdraws  the 
gaze  of  the  university  scientist  from  the  far  horizon  to  the  immediate 
details  of  the  here  and  now.  It  can  well  result  in  the  shrinking  of  the 
horizon  and  a  narrower  outlook  for  all — professor,  industrial  executive, 
and  government  official.  It  can  indeed  inhibit  the  basic  freedom  of 
the  mind  to  roam,  which  is  the  proper  function  of  the  university 
scientist. 

What,  then,  is  the  philosophy  that  should  guide  the  university  in 
its  acceptance  of  research  projects  with  industry  and  government?  I 
think  that  the  answer  is  twofold,  one  part  negative,  the  other  positive. 
The  university  should  decide  not  to  accept  funds  when  they  are  to  be 
used  in  solving  a  particular  commercial  problem  involving  the  ordinary 
procedures  of  applied  research  or  technology.  It  should  tend  to  select 
research  projects  which  involve  fundamental  science  within  the  range 
of  interest  of  its  staff.  Special  consideration  should  be  given  to  the 
possibiUty  of  integrating  the  research  projects  with  the  university's 
primary  program  of  education.  Selection  of  projects  should  be  based 
on  the  intrinsic  scientific  worth  of  the  efTort.  Thus,  I  believe  that  the 
university  can  safeguard  its  educational  inheritance  by  giving  due 
regard  to  the  availability  within  the  university  of  properly  qualified 
and  interested  faculty  members  and  the  applicability  of  the  research 
project  as  an  instrument  of  education  and  instruction  in  the  methods 
of  science  and  scientific  research. 

This  concern  for  balance  and  the  temptation  to  the  easy  solution 
is  receiving  a  marked  amount  of  attention  at  the  present  time.  The 
policies  of  the  Office  of  Naval  Research  in  the  postwar  years  have 
definitely  reflected  these  tendencies.  Big  business  is  becoming  increas- 
ingly concerned  with  them.  Laird  Bell  of  Chicago  has  recently  empha- 


194  SEVENTY-FIFTH    ANNIVERSARY 

sized  that  "a  great  part  of  our  national  wealth  is  locked  up  in  corporate 
form.  .  .  .  Some  few  of  the  advanced  corporations  already  recognize 
that  it  is  good  business  to  promote  higher  education  in  its  research 
aspects."  "The  next  logical  step,"  he  states,  "is  to  recognize  an  obli- 
gation to  promote  both  theoretical  research  at  the  university  level  and 
the  production  of  good  citizens  at  the  college  level."  The  advanced 
position  which  these  last  phrases  indicate  is  echoed  also  by  Frank  W. 
Abrams,  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  (New 
Jersey)  :  "If  we  let  our  educational  system  decay,  we  will  gravely  injure 
the  foundation  of  our  greatness  as  a  nation.  By  the  same  token,  if  we 
develop  our  educational  system — expanding  it  and  making  it  stronger 
— we  will  be  cultivating  the  greatest  of  our  national  resources,  the 
people  of  America.  And  no  one  has  a  greater  stake  in  the  future  of 
America  than  American  businessmen." 

IT  IS  evident  that,  on  a  broad  front,  beyond  even  our  present  discussion 
of  the  conservation  of  our  human  resource,  research,  the  problem 
of  support  from  government  and  industry  for  the  university  is  being 
examined.  Our  present  more  limited  problem  is  to  ascertain  how  the 
universities  may  best  be  assisted  in  "the  stock-piling  of  basic  knowl- 
edge." Some  method  must  be  found  to  provide  a  counter-balance  to 
the  distractions  of  appHed  research  and  tendencies  of  all  kinds  away 
from  basic  research.  It  is  evident  that  industrial  organizations  can 
assist  in  promoting  such  programs  of  fundamental  research.  They  can 
do  so  by  the  supply  of  funds  which  should,  so  far  as  possible,  be 
unrestricted  in  use,  the  university  to  assume  the  responsibility  of 
applying  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  produce  most  effectively  a  yield 
in  fundamental  knowledge.  It  ought  not  to  be  difficult  to  insure  this 
and,  at  the  same  time,  divest  the  research  work  so  assisted  of  any 
suggestion  of  commercial  objective. 

A  problem  that  arises  in  connection  with  such  a  proposal  from 
the  standpoint  of  a  university  is  the  period  of  time  over  which  such  a 
grant  would  be  made  available  to  the  university  in  question.  There 
are  obvious  difficulties  in  the  operation  of  such  a  scheme  on  the  basis 
of  an  annual  grant.  Basic  research  of  this  type  requires  long-range 
planning  and  commitments  that  will  normally  extend  beyond  one  or 


UNIVERSITY   RESEARCH  I95 

two  years.  The  quality  of  personnel  required  cannot  be  secured  on  a 
year-to-year  employment  contract.  For  successful  operation,  basic  re- 
search programs  require  personnel  with  at  least  the  capacity  of  first-rate 
assistant  professors.  Such  men  expect  and  can  secure  term  appoint- 
ments of  three  years'  duration.  Any  program  of  assistance  by  indus- 
trial organizations  to  universities  for  the  promotion  of  basic  research 
should  envisage,  therefore,  the  possibility  of  a  grant  to  such  a  university 
over  a  period  of  years.  A  five-year  period  would  represent  a  workable 
norm.  One  can  visualize  the  possibility  of  a  university  entering  into 
an  arrangement  of  this  kind  with  a  group  of  industrial  organizations, 
the  periods  of  support  to  be  staggered  over  the  years  in  such  a  way 
that  the  discontinuance  of  one  program  of  assistance  would  not 
seriously  embarrass  the  over-all  basic  effort.  As  each  five-year  period 
terminated  the  university  would  make  a  comprehensive  report  to  the 
industrial  organization  concerned  as  to  what  had  been  achieved  with 
the  assistance  rendered  and  a  statement  as  to  what  might  further  be 
achieved  should  the  company  decide  to  renew  its  commitment.  Over 
a  five-year  period  it  should  be  possible  for  a  university  to  demonstrate 
a  proportionally  larger  achievement  than  it  could  possibly  demonstrate 
on  a  year-to-year  basis.  The  whole  organization  of  a  five-year  project 
and  its  effective  prosecution  would  be  far  superior  to  that  possible  on 
the  basis  of  an  annual  grant. 

To  initiate  such  a  program  it  might  be  necessary  for  an  industry 
to  proceed  by  stages.  In  the  first  year  a  five-year  grant  might  be  made 
to  one-fifth  of  all  the  universities  that  were  to  be  included  in  the 
over-all  project  of  the  company.  In  succeeding  years  grants  to  addi- 
tional members  of  the  university  group  would  be  initiated.  In  no  year 
would  the  total  expense  or  commitment  be  any  larger  than  under  a 
one-year  scheme  but  the  advantages  of  the  longer-range  project  to  each 
would  be  secured.  It  is  well  known  that  industrial  organizations 
manifest  reluctance  toward  long-range  commitments  because  of  their 
inability  to  anticipate  what  the  future  financial  conditions  will  be.  It 
may  be  urged,  however,  that  since  planning  over  a  period  of  years 
ahead  is  a  necessary  part  of  executive  planning  for  industrial  objectives, 
it  is  equally  necessary  in  planning  for  the  accumulation  of  basic  knowl- 
edge.  Once  this  is  recognized,  the  centers  where  basic  knowledge  is 


196  SEVENTY-FIFTH   ANNIVERSARY 

accumulated  can  proceed  to  a  more  effective  utilization  of  their  assets 
in  men  and  ideas. 

PERHAPS  it  may  be  permitted,  in  conclusion,  to  turn  away  for  a  few 
moments  from  the  concrete  problems  involved  in  the  organization 
of  basic  research  to  the  more  abstract  problem  of  research  itself,  research 
as  a  human  resource.  There  came  in  this  connection  to  my  attention  a 
few  weeks  ago  a  passage  written  by  Pierre  Teilhard  de  Chardin,  the 
eminent  Jesuit  geologist,  who  has  combined  missionary  and  scientific 
activity  in  that  fertile  area  for  both,  Northern  China.  Back  in  his 
native  France  in  the  autumn  of  a  full  life  he  has  ventured  to  trace  out 
the  evolution  of  mind  and  thought  as  it  envelops  the  earth.  Concerning 
the  development  of  research  he  penned  the  following  passage  which 
I  have  ventured  freely  to  translate  into  English  for  this  occasion: 

To  understand,  to  discern,  to  invent.  .  .  .  From  the  first  awakening  of 
reflective  conscience,  man  surely  has  been  possessed  by  the  spirit  of 
research.  Until  quite  recently,  however,  this  profound  need  remained, 
in  the  mass  of  humanity,  latent,  diffused  or  unorganized.  In  each  genera- 
tion, in  the  past,  the  true  research  workers,  seekers  by  vocation  or  profes- 
sion, have  been  recognized.  But  they  have  been  only  a  handful  of  indi- 
viduals, generally  isolated,  rather  of  an  abnormal  type — the  group  of 
"curious  men."  Today,  however,  without  our  having  paid  particular 
attention  to  it,  the  situation  is  completely  changed.  By  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands, at  this  moment,  men  in  all  directions  of  thought,  life,  and  matter, 
are  undertaking  research,  no  longer  alone,  but  by  organized  groups, 
endowed  with  a  power  of  penetration  that  nothing  seems  to  be  able  to 
arrest.  Here  also,  the  movement  is  in  process  of  becoming  generalized,  it 
accelerates,  to  such  an  extent  that  one  would  have  to  be  blind  not  to  see  in 
it  an  essential  element.  Manifestly,  research,  today  still  a  luxury  occupation, 
is  in  process  of  becoming  a  primary  function,  even  a  principal  function  of 
humanity.    What  does  this  great  event  signify?^ 

Research,  "by  hundreds  of  thousands,  by  men  in  all  directions  of 
thought,  life,  and  matter" — that  is  a  canvas  far  larger,  more  compre- 
hensive than  that  to  which  we  have  just  been  paying  our  attention. 
The  research  and  scholarship  that  the  university  scientist  pursues  is 

*  "Unc  interpretation  biologique  plausible  tie  I'Histoire  Humaine:  la  formation  dc 
la  'Noosphere.'  "  Revue  des  Questions  Saentifiques,  CXVIII   (January,   1947),  pp.  25-26. 


UNIVERSITY   RESEARCH  I97 

not  more  than  one-half  of  that  which  the  university  as  a  whole 
embraces.  What  of  the  professors  and  scholars  in  the  areas  of  the 
social  sciences  and  the  humanities?  They  too  have  chosen  the  schol- 
arly career,  have  elected  their  way  of  life  with  the  same  devotion  to 
things  of  the  mind  and  spirit  that  animates  the  best  of  the  scientists. 
They  too  have  made  the  sacrifices  incident  to  a  scholarly  career,  are 
also  responsive  to  those  stimuli  that  over  the  past  decades  have  made 
the  career  of  the  scientist  so  fruitful.  There  is  need,  also,  to  secure  to 
these  men  the  same  consolidation  and  unification  of  research  efTort, 
the  same  care  for  resources  and  support  as  are  available  to  the  scientist. 
Is  it  not  possible  to  activate  these  disciplines  with  a  measure  of  gen- 
erosity similar  to  that  which  the  scientist  expects  and  receives? 

America,  today,  faces  a  sterner  task,  a  greater  responsibility  than 
one  nation  has  ever  faced  before  in  the  pages  of  human  history.  The 
task  calls  for  constructive  agencies  even  more  than  for  destructive 
agencies.  Besides  the  evolution  of  science  we  need  also  a  revolution  in 
man's  mind  and  heart,  his  morals  and  his  spirit.  I  see  no  way  for 
university  men  to  share  in  that  revolution  unless  we  face  the  task  of 
research  as  a  human  resource  at  all  the  levels  of  thought,  life,  and 
matter,  unless  we  face  the  task  of  increasing  as  well  the  contributions 
of  teacher-scholars  in  those  areas  which  science  cannot  serve.  Thus, 
only,  can  we  utilize  to  the  full  this  function  of  research,  this  principal 
function  of  humanity. 


